DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Patent Application No. 18/712,004, filed 21 May, 2024, as the National Stage Entry of International Application PCT/IL2022/051239, filed 21 November, 2022, and with priority to US Provisional Application 63/281,693, filed 21 November, 2021.
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
The preliminary amendments filed 21 May, 2024, have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, 20, 23-25, and 27 are amended. Claims 11, 16-19, 21, 26, and 28 are cancelled. Claims 1-10, 12-15, 20, 22-25, and 27 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 22 is a method which recites in the body of the claim steps of receiving geometrical information, receiving UV radiation emitting level(s), and determining locations of UV sources. The steps appear to amount to abstract ideas which are not clearly tied to a particular structure, and could be performed as mental processes. Accordingly, the claim prompts analysis of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. MPEP Sections 2106(III.), 2106.03(II.), and 2164.04 set forth how subject eligibility is to be determined. In the instant case, the examiner finds: 1) the claim is to a process; and 2A) the claim does recite an abstract idea (e.g., “determining locations”), but the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Particularly, the claim interpreted such that the preamble clause “of placing one or more UV radiation sources” is a further step of the method, with it being understood that the claim implies a step of placing UV radiation sources at the determined locations in an internal space; such placement of UV radiation sources is considered a practical application. Nonetheless, it is noted that the clarity of the eligibility of the subject matter of claim 22 could be improved by adjusting the claim to clearly set forth what structures are responsible for the steps of “receiving” and “determining”, and adding a step which clearly states that the UV radiation sources are positioned at the determined locations.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 12, 20, and 22 are objected to for the minor informalities indicated below.
Claim 10 is objected to because “UV radiation dose threshold value” should be adjusted to read either “a UV radiation dose threshold value” or “the upper UV radiation dose threshold value”.
Claims 12 is objected to because “based on the receive measurements” at line 8 of the claim should read “based on the received measurements”.
Claim 20 is objected to because “form” at line 3 of the claim should read “from”.
Claim 22 is objected to because “receiving UV radiation emitting level” should be adjusted to read “receiving a UV radiation emitting level”, or possibly “receiving UV radiation emitting levels”.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the UV radiation dose” at line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should be adjusted to read “a UV radiation dose”. Claims 2-10 are rejected at least by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation “the UV radiation level” at the second line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that the limitation be replaced with “the UV radiation dose” to correspond with the recitation of “calculate the UV radiation dose at one or more locations in the internal space” at line 9 of claim 1. Alternative adjustments which clarify the intended scope of the claim may be appropriate.
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)(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.
(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 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being unpatentable over Trapani (US 2020/0345875 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Trapani teaches a sterilization system (title, abstract) comprising an emitter (10), a plurality of UV sensors (21-24) ([0026]), and a central computer (11) acting as a controller ([0027]). The computer (11) uses UV light level readings from UV sensors (21-24) to determine when a programmed dose of incident UV light has been delivered to each sensor location ([0027]-[0028]). Particularly, the computer (11) receives UV intensity data measured by UV sensors (21-24) over a period of time ([0033]), and integrates the total incident light energy (i.e., dosage) received at each sensor to ensure that at least a prescribed dosage has been delivered to each sensor location. Once each sensor has achieved a threshold dosage value, the disinfection procedure is determined complete ([0032]), and the emission of UV light is ceased (while UV irradiation is in progress, the system undergoes a loop of measuring the dosage received at the sensors 112…when the monitoring loop detects its condition, UV irradiation is ceased—Fig. 2, [0059]).
Accordingly, Trapani teaches a UV based microorganism inactivation system, comprising:
at least one UV source (10), configured to emit UV radiation (emitter 10 is mobile structure with lamps that emit ultraviolet light—[0027]);
at least one UV sensor (UV sensors 21-24 ), located at a known location with respect to the at least one UV source (sensing subsystem includes UV sensors 21-24 placed at a site to measure total UV light incident upon them—[0032]; remote sensor and UV emitter are placed in a desired location—[0040]—such that their relative locations are “known”); and
a controller (computer 11) configured to:
receive UV radiation measurements from the at least one UV sensor (computer 11 is provided UV light level readings from UV sensors 21-24—[0027]-[0028]);
receive information (occupancy status) related to an internal space accommodating the at least one UV source and the at least one UV sensor (computer communicates with door sensor 30 to receive information indicating if a person has entered the room being treated—[0030]);
calculate the UV radiation dose at one or more locations in the internal space based on the received measurements, for a given starting time (central computer 11 integrates received transmissions from UV sensors over time to calculate the total incident light energy delivered to each sensor location—[0036]; starting time is fairly indicated to correspond with the beginning of UV emission by the UV source, see steps 110 and 112 in Fig. 2);
receive an upper UV radiation dose threshold value (at step 102, user selects job parameters including a desired UV dosage—[0057]; threshold dosage can be set by an operator through remote control 40—[0030]; computer 11 determines when a programmed dose of incident UV light has been delivered to each of the remote sensors—[0028]; prescribed dosage—[0036]; thus evident that computer 11 receives a UV threshold input by a user); and
control the at least one UV source based on the calculated UV radiation dose and based on the upper UV radiation dose threshold value (see Fig. 2 and [0058]-[0059], the UV light sources are activated at step 110 and continue emitting while the computer tracks the dosage received at the sensor at block 112, until the threshold dosage is received at all sensors, at which point the UV light source is deactivated—see [0032], [0059]; thus, the computer 11 clearly controls the emitter 10 based on a comparison of the calculated UV dose and the threshold UV dose).
Regarding claim 2, Trapani teaches the system of claim 1. Trapani further teaches the UV radiation dose is a direct UV radiation dose (The UV light sensing system will measure actual incident light at least one particular site in an area….an advantage of using incident light over reflected light is that with incident light, sensors can be placed at any site to guarantee that UV radiation reaches a certain minimum dosage at that site—[0032]).
Regarding claim 12, the claim amounts to a method of operating the system of claim 1, the claims encompassing highly overlapping subject matter because several of the steps of claim 12 corresponding with the functions the controller of claim 1 is configured to perform. Accordingly, Trapani (discussed in greater depth with respect to claim 1 above) teaches a method of controlling a UV based microorganism inactivation system (see Fig. 2) comprising:
controlling at least one UV source (emitter 10—see [0027]) to emit UV radiation into an internal space (Fig. 2, step 110—see [0058]);
receiving UV radiation measurements from at least one UV sensor (computer 11 is provided UV light level readings from UV sensors 21-24—[0027]-[0028]; also see step 112 of Fig. 2—[0059]);
receiving information (occupancy status) related to an internal space accommodating the at least one UV source and the at least one UV sensor (computer 11 communicates with door sensor 30 which indicates if a person has entered the room being treated—[0030]; also see step 114 of Fig. 2—[0059]);
calculating a UV radiation dose at one or more locations in the internal space based on the receive measurements for a given starting time (central computer 11 integrates received transmissions from UV sensors over time to calculate the total incident light energy delivered to each sensor location—[0036]; starting time is fairly indicated to correspond with the beginning of UV emission by the UV source, see steps 110 and 112 in Fig. 2);
receiving an upper UV radiation dose threshold value (at step 102, user selects job parameters including a desired UV dosage—Fig. 2, [0057]; also see [0028], [0030], and [0036] discussing how an operator can input a UV threshold dosage used to control the emission of UV light); and
controlling the UV radiation emitted from the at least one UV source based on the calculated UV radiation dose and based on the-upper UV radiation dose threshold value (see Fig. 2 and [0058]-[0059], the UV light sources are activated at step 110 and continue emitting UV light while the computer tracks the dosage received at the sensors at block 112, the emission ceasing when the threshold dosage is received at all sensors—see [0032], [0059]; thus, the computer 11 clearly controls the emitter 10 based on a comparison of the calculated UV dose and the threshold UV dose).
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 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalicki et al. (US 2018/0185533 A1, cited in the IDs filed 22 January 2026) in view of Trapani (US 2020/0345875 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lalicki teaches a UV based microorganism inactivation system (disinfecting light system 100 for disinfecting environment 10—[0026]; with control system 109—[0037]), comprising:
at least one UV source (102,104), configured to emit UV radiation (108) (disinfecting light fixtures 102,104 provide disinfecting energy 108 to environment 10—[0030]; disinfecting energy 108 may include UV light having a spectral range of 100 nm to 400 nm—[0034]);
at least one UV sensor (112), located at a known location with respect to the at least one UV source (first sensor 112 positioned within space 30 for measuring or detecting the amount of disinfecting energy 108 provided to the space 30 by the disinfecting light fixture 102—[0041]; location of sensor 112 and light source 102/104 is necessarily “known”); and
a controller (110) configured to:
receive UV radiation measurements from the at least one UV sensor (112) (amount of disinfecting energy 108 provided to first space 30 by first disinfecting light fixture 102 is measured by first sensor 112 and transmitted to controller 110—[0041]);
receive information related to an internal space accommodating the at least one UV source and the at least one UV sensor (occupancy of space 30 detected by sensor 120A may be provided to controller 110—[0048]; amount of natural light 20 of first space 30 sensed by third sensor 120B may be provided to controller 110—[0050]; controller 110 may receive information about a task being carried out in first space 30 from third sensor 120C—[0055]);
receive an upper UV radiation dose threshold value (disinfecting energy threshold, or preferred amount of disinfecting energy); and control the at least one UV source based on the calculated UV radiation dose and based on the upper UV radiation dose threshold value (controller 110 compares the measured amount of disinfecting energy 108 provided to the first space 30 to a disinfecting energy threshold and adjusts the amount of disinfecting energy 108 provided to the space 30 by adjusting the output of first disinfecting light fixture 102—[0041]; a preferred amount of disinfecting energy to be provided to first space 30 may be associated with the environmental characteristics detected by third sensors 120A-C, and the controller may compare the amount of disinfecting energy 108 within the space 30 measured by sensor 112 with the preferred amount of disinfecting energy associated with detected environmental characteristics of first space 3, and adjust the output of disinfecting light fixture 102 based on the comparison—[0045]; also see exemplary embodiments of controller adjusting the output of light fixture 102 based on a comparison between a determined preferred amount of disinfecting energy and a measured amount of disinfecting energy at [0048], [0050], [0055]; predetermined disinfecting energy threshold may be a desired range of disinfecting energy to be provided to the space over a predetermined period of time—[0077]; a range necessarily has an upper and lower bound, such that Lalicki fairly teaches a disinfecting energy threshold which defines an “upper UV radiation dose threshold value” that the controller compares to the measured disinfecting energy to control the UV source).
See the system (100) of Lalicki in Fig. 6 below
PNG
media_image1.png
484
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As indicated above, Lalicki discusses the controller receiving an amount of disinfecting light measured by the UV sensor (112) and comparing to a threshold value ([0041], [0045]). Lalicki also discusses the controller operating to achieve a target dosage over a period of time by adjusting the intensity of the disinfecting light sources (controller 110 may control or adjust operation of first disinfecting light fixture 102 to meet the amount of disinfecting energy 108 over the predetermined amount of time before the predetermined amount of time has expired or past—[0066]), which may fairly imply that the controller tracks and calculates a cumulative dosage of disinfecting light over the period of time, compares the calculated dosage to a target dosage, and controls the disinfecting light source based on the comparison.
Nonetheless, Lalicki is not explicitly clear in indicating that controller necessarily calculates the UV radiation dose at one or more locations in the internal space based on the received measurements, for a given starting time (particularly, Lalicki is sometimes ambiguous in establishing when an “amount of disinfecting energy” is referring to an intensity of emitted light [i.e., an irradiance, illuminance, or power] or a dosage of emitted light [i.e., a cumulative or total amount of emitted energy, or the integral of intensity over time], and Lalicki does not make clear if a cumulative dosage is necessarily calculated by the controller or received from the sensor).
However, in the analogous art of room sterilization systems (title), Trapani teaches the system discussed in the alternative rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (see above), wherein a controller (11) receives UV intensity measurements from UV sensors (21-24) (computer 11 provided UV light level readings from UV sensors 21-24—[0027]-[0028]; UV sensors measure UV light intensity and communicate the intensity as data to central computer 11—[0033]) and integrates the intensity measurements over time to calculate a UV dosage received at each sensor location (central computer 11 integrates received transmissions from UV sensors over time to calculate the total incident light energy delivered to each sensor location—[0036]). Trapani further teaches a comparison of the calculated UV dosage received at each sensor to a threshold dosage, wherein the comparison informs how the controller operates a UV light source (UV light sources are activated at step 110 and continue emitting while the computer tracks the dosage received at the sensor at block 112, until the threshold dosage is received at all sensors, at which point the UV light source is deactivated—see [0032], [0059]). The dosage is understood to be calculated with respect to a start time coinciding with the initiation of UV emission by the UV source.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the system of Lalicki such that controller receives UV light intensity readings from the UV sensor(s) over a period of time and integrates the intensity measurements and associated time data to calculate a [cumulative] UV dosage received at the sensor over the period of time, as seen in Trapani ([0036]), for the benefit of tracking the dosage of UV light delivered to sensor locations within the space and allowing the controller to adjust operations to ensure a dosage threshold is met at a sensor location for a predetermined period (Lalicki at [0066] discusses the controller adjusting the intensity of the emission of disinfecting energy so that an amount of disinfecting energy delivered over a period of time meets a target amount, such as 6 joules per day; Trapani at [0036] suggests integrating the intensity can help ensure that at least a prescribed dosage is delivered to a sensor location).
Regarding claim 2, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the system of claim 1. Lalicki and Trapani further teach the UV radiation dose is a direct UV radiation dose (Lalicki at [0040] indicates the first sensor 112 may be a spectrometer, photodiode, watt meter, or any other sensor which detects an amount of disinfecting energy provided to the first space by disinfecting light fixture, and as modified with respect toc alim 1 above said sensor measurements are used to calculate the UV radiation dose, such a dose fairly defining a “direct” UV radiation dose; also, Trapani at [0032] also indicates it is advantageous to measure actual incident light at a particular site, as opposed to reflected light, to guarantee that UV radiation reaches a certain minimum dosage at that site, said teachings of Trapani guiding a person of ordinary skill to calculate a direct UV radiation dose) .
Regarding claim 3, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the system of claim 1. Lalicki further teaches controlling the at least one UV source comprises reducing an intensity of the UV radiation (controller 110 configured to vary/adjust lumen output/operational intensity of disinfecting energy provided to spaces 30,32 of environment 10 via disinfecting light fixtures 102, 104—[0037]; controller of the control system may be configured in increase or decrease the amount of disinfecting energy generated by the disinfecting light fixture…to maintain a predetermined or desired amount, level, minimum, and/or range of disinfecting energy to be provided to the space over a predetermined period of time—[0079]; predetermined or desired amount, level, minimum, and/or range of disinfecting energy may correspond to, for example, a daily dosage—see [0077]).
Regarding claim 4, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a lower UV radiation dose threshold value; and control the at least one UV source also based on the lower UV radiation dose threshold value ([0079] indicates the controller increases or decreases the amount of disinfecting light emitted by the disinfecting light fixture to achieve an amount of disinfecting energy provided to the space over a predetermined period of time within a desired range—[0079]—said range corresponding to, e.g., a daily dosage target range—see [0077]; a range definitionally includes a lower and upper threshold value, such that Lalicki indicating that the controller operates to achieve a daily dosage within a target range amounts to the controller receiving a lower UV radiation dose threshold value and controlling the UV source based on the lower UV radiation dose threshold value)
Regarding claim 5, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the system of claim 3. Lalicki further teaches controlling the at least one UV source comprises increasing an intensity of the UV radiation (controller 110 configured to vary/adjust lumen output/operational intensity of disinfecting energy provided to spaces 30,32 of environment 10 via disinfecting light fixtures 102, 104—[0037]; controller of the control system may be configured in increase or decrease the amount of disinfecting energy generated by the disinfecting light fixture…to maintain a predetermined or desired amount, level, minimum, and/or range of disinfecting energy to be provided to the space over a predetermined period of time—[0079]; predetermined or desired amount, level, minimum, and/or range of disinfecting energy to be provided to the space over a predetermined period of time may correspond to, for example, a daily dosage—see [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the system according to claim 1. Lalicki further teaches the internal space comprises a floor (floor 38 within first space 30—[0049]), and the one or more locations of the UV sensors (112) in the internal space may be located anywhere within the space where the emitted UV light can be detected (Although shown as being coupled to ceiling 34 within first space 30 of environment 10, it is understood that first sensor 112 may be positioned anywhere within first space 30 so long as first sensor 112 is capable of measuring the amount of disinfecting energy 108 provided to first space 30 by first disinfecting light fixture 102—[0041]). In a particular embodiment, Lalicki teaches a UV sensor (fourth sensor 122 may be substantially similar to first sensor 112—[073]) positioned on a workstation (26) some distance above the floor (38) (fourth sensor 122 positioned on workstation 26—[0073], see Fig. 1).
Trapani similarly suggests UV light sensors at any site where it is desired to ensure that a minimum dosage of UV radiation reaches the site ([0032]).
Accordingly, although Lalicki and Trapani do not explicitly teach the one or more locations in the internal space are located between one to two meters above the floor, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the system of modified Lalicki such that the UV sensor is positioned at a location between one and two meters above the floor for the benefit of tracking the dosage of UV light delivered to said position (consider Trapani at [0032]). Also see MPEP 2144.04(VI.)(C.) regarding the obviousness of the rearrangement of parts when the rearrangement does not significantly modify the operation of a device.
Regarding claim 8, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the system according to claim 1. Claim 8 recites: wherein calculating the UV radiation level at the one or more locations comprises calculating at least one of: irradiance tracking dose, irradiance dose for humans, irradiance dose for surfaces, and fluence dose for air. As modified with respect to claim 1, the controller of Lalicki calculates the UV radiation dose received at each UV sensor by integrating irradiance measurements received at the surface of each sensor (see rejection of claim 1, and Trapani at [0036]). Accordingly, modified Lalicki is understood to calculate a UV radiation which fairly defines either an “irradiance tracking dose” or a “irradiance dose for surfaces” consistent with the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the system according to claim 1. Lalicki further teaches at least one human presence sensor (third sensor 120A may be configured as any suitable sensor capable of measuring or detecting an occupancy level for first space 30, including detecting whether or not first space 30 is occupied, detecting the number of users occupying the first space, and detecting changes in occupancy for space 30—[0047]) and wherein the controller is further configured to calculate UV radiation dose threshold value based on a detected presence of at least one human (controller 110 may compare the measured amount of disinfecting energy 108 of first space 30 with the preferred amount of disinfecting energy associated with the occupancy level of first space 30 detected by third sensor 120A, and may adjust the amount of disinfecting energy 108 provided to space 30 by adjusting the output of first disinfecting light fixture 102—[0048]; see [0141]-[0142] discussing how the system includes different thresholds/targets for amounts of disinfecting light to deliver to the room based on the number of occupants, and wherein the system adjusts the output disinfecting light to meet the different thresholds when the occupancy of the room changes; it is reasonably within the scope of a person having ordinary skill in the art to establish such threshold amounts as dose thresholds).
Regarding claim 12, it is first noted that the claim amounts to a method of operating the system of claim 1 with highly overlapping subject matter. Accordingly, Lalicki teaches a method (Fig. 2) of controlling a UV based microorganism inactivation system comprising:
controlling at least one UV source to emit UV radiation into an internal space (Fig. 2 shows process of regulating disinfecting energy 108 generated by a disinfecting light system 100 within spaces 30,32 of an environment 10—[0075]; disinfecting energy may include UV light—[0034]; thus evident that the process includes activating a UV light source);
receiving UV radiation measurements from at least one UV sensor (an amount of disinfecting energy provided to a space is measured by at least one sensor positioned within the space—[0076], step P1 of Fig. 2);
receiving information related to an internal space accommodating the at least one UV source and the at least one UV sensor (step P6: detect environment characteristic of space P6—Fig. 2, [0085]);
receiving an upper UV radiation dose threshold value (predetermined disinfecting energy threshold—step P2 of Fig. 2—which threshold may define a desired range of disinfecting energy to be provided over a predetermined period of time, such as a target daily dosage range—see [0077]; note that the process of Fig. 2 can be performed by a controller 110—[0075]—which must at some point in operation receive the predetermined dose threshold value); and
controlling the UV radiation emitted from the at least one UV source based on the received UV radiation measurements and based on the upper UV radiation dose threshold value (step P3, Fig. 2: when measured amount of disinfecting energy does not meet disinfecting energy threshold, the amount of disinfecting energy provided to the space is adjusted by altering the operation of a disinfecting light texture to increase or decrease the amount of disinfecting light generated by the disinfecting light fixture and provided to the space—[0079]).
As similarly discussed with respect to claim 1 above, Lalicki is not explicitly clear in teaching that a UV radiation dose is calculated based on received UV radiation measurements for a given starting time, and that control of the UV radiation is based on the calculated UV radiation dose . However, Trapani teaches a UV sterilization wherein a controller (11) receives UV intensity measurements from UV sensors (21-24) (computer 11 provided UV light level readings from UV sensors 21-24—[0027]-[0028]; UV sensors measure UV light intensity and communicate the intensity as data to central computer 11—[0033]) and integrates the intensity measurements over time to calculate a UV dosage received at each sensor location (central computer 11 integrates received transmissions from UV sensors over time to calculate the total incident light energy delivered to each sensor location—[0036]). Trapani further teaches comparing the calculated UV dosage received at each sensor to a threshold dosage, wherein the comparison informs how the controller operates a UV light source (UV light sources are activated at step 110 and continue emitting while the computer tracks the dosage received at the sensor at block 112, until the threshold dosage is received at all sensors, at which point the UV light source is deactivated—see [0032], [0059]). The dosage is understood to be calculated with respect to a start time coinciding with the initiation of UV emission by the UV source.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the system of Lalicki such that controller receives UV light intensity readings from the UV sensor(s) over a period of time and integrates the intensity measurements and associated time data to calculate a [cumulative] UV dosage received at the sensor over the period of time, as seen in Trapani ([0036]), for the benefit of tracking the dosage of UV light delivered to sensor locations within the space and allowing the controller to adjust operations to ensure a dosage threshold is met at a sensor location for a predetermined period (Lalicki at [0066] discusses the controller adjusting the intensity of the emission of disinfecting energy so that an amount of disinfecting energy delivered over a period of time meets a target amount, such as 6 joules per day; Trapani at [0036] suggests integrating the intensity can help ensure that at least a prescribed dosage is delivered to a sensor location).
Regarding claim 13, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the method of claim 12. As discussed above with respect to the corresponding limitations of claim 3, Lalicki further teaches controlling the UV radiation comprises at least reducing an intensity of the UV radiation (controller 110 configured to vary/adjust lumen output/operational intensity of disinfecting energy provided to spaces 30,32 of environment 10 via disinfecting light fixtures 102, 104—[0037]; controller of the control system may be configured in increase or decrease the amount of disinfecting energy generated by the disinfecting light fixture…to maintain a predetermined or desired amount, level, minimum, and/or range of disinfecting energy to be provided to the space over a predetermined period of time—[0079]; predetermined or desired amount, level, minimum, and/or range of disinfecting energy may correspond to, for example, a daily dosage—see [0077]).
Regarding claim 14, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the method of claim 12. As discussed above with respect to the corresponding limitations of claim 4, Lalicki further teaches receiving a lower UV radiation dose threshold value; and controlling the UV radiation emitted from the at least one UV source based on the lower UV radiation threshold value (Lalicki at [0079] indicates the controller increases or decreases the amount of disinfecting light emitted by the disinfecting light fixture to achieve an amount of disinfecting energy provided to the space over a predetermined period of time within a desired range—[0079]—said range corresponding to, e.g., a daily dosage target range—see [0077]; a range definitionally includes a lower and upper threshold value, such that Lalicki indicating that the controller operates to achieve a daily dosage within a target range amounts to the controller receiving a lower UV radiation dose threshold value and controlling the UV source based on the lower UV radiation dose threshold value).
Regarding claim 15, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the method of claim 13. As discussed above with respect to the corresponding limitations of claim 5, Lalicki further teaches controlling the UV radiation comprises at least increasing the intensity of the UV radiation (controller 110 configured to vary/adjust lumen output/operational intensity of disinfecting energy provided to spaces 30,32 of environment 10 via disinfecting light fixtures 102, 104—[0037]; controller of the control system may be configured in increase or decrease the amount of disinfecting energy generated by the disinfecting light fixture…to maintain a predetermined or desired amount, level, minimum, and/or range of disinfecting energy to be provided to the space over a predetermined period of time—[0079]; predetermined or desired amount, level, minimum, and/or range of disinfecting energy to be provided to the space over a predetermined period of time may correspond to, for example, a daily dosage—see [0077]).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalicki et al. (US 2018/0185533 A1) in view of Trapani (US 2020/0345875 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ohashi et al. (US 2023/0414805 A1, corresponding to JP 6908172 B1 cited in the IDS filed 22 January, 2026).
Regarding claim 9, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the system according to claim 1. Lalicki indicates the emitted UV light may have a wavelength within the ultraviolet range of 100-400 nm ([0034]), which encompasses but is considerably broader than the effectively claimed far UV-C range (defined in the instant specification at [005] as 200-230 nm). Trapani also does not suggest selecting a particular wavelength or wavelengths within the UV range. Thus, Lalicki and Trapani do not fairly teach at least one UV source is a Far UV-C source.
However, in the analogous art of microorganism inactivation systems (title, abstract), Ohashi teaches a system (1000A) comprising at least one ultraviolet irradiation device (110) provided within a space (200), an ultraviolet sensor (121A-B) ([0125]), and a control unit (120) ([0128]). Ohashi indicates that the ultraviolet irradiation device irradiates ultraviolet light within a wavelength range of 200 to 240 nm because said wavelengths are effective for sterilization while having less adverse effects on humans relative to other ultraviolet sterilizing wavelengths (the light may be ultraviolet light in a wavelength range of 200 to 240 nm—[0021], [0030]—enabling sterilization and inactivation to be effectively performed using light that has little adverse effect on human or animal cells—[0022], [0031]; light source may emit ultraviolet light with a center wavelength of 222 nm—[0061]; ultraviolet light in a wavelength of 200 to 240 nm may have less adverse effects on a human body—[0064], [0091]; light in a wavelength range of 200 to 240 nm is safe for humans and animals, and can kill microorganisms and inactivate viruses—[0095]; wavelength range that is safe for humans and animals is most preferably a wavelength of 200 to 230 nm—[0099]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of modified Lalicki with a UV source which emits far-UVC light having a wavelength or wavelengths within the range of 200 to 230 nm (see Ohashi at [0099]), such as UV-C light with central wavelength of 222 nm (see Ohashi at [0061]), for the benefit of providing ultraviolet light which is effective for microbial inactivation while being relatively safe for humans (see Ohashi at [0022], [0031], [0064], [0091], and [0095]).
Regarding claim 20, Lalicki in view of Trapani teaches the method of claim 12. As discussed above with respect to the similar limitations of claim 10, Lalicki further taches receiving a detection of human presence from at least one human presence sensor (third sensor 120A may be configured as any suitable sensor capable of measuring or detecting an occupancy level for first space 30, including detecting whether or not first space 30 is occupied, detecting the number of users occupying the first space, and detecting changes in occupancy for space 30—[0047]; occupancy level of first space 30 detected by third sensor 120A is provided or transmitted to controller 110—[0048]), and calculating the UV radiation dose *threshold* based on a detected presence of at least one human (controller 110 may compare the measured amount of disinfecting energy 108 of first space 30 with the preferred amount of disinfecting energy associated with the occupancy level of first space 30 detected by third sensor 120A, and may adjust the amount of disinfecting energy 108 provided to space 30 by adjusting the output of first disinfecting light fixture 102—[0048]; also see [0141]-[0142] discussing how the system includes different thresholds/targets for amounts of disinfecting light to deliver to the room based on the number of occupants, and wherein the system adjusts the output disinfecting light to meet the different thresholds when the occupancy of the room changes; it is reasonably within the scope of a person having ordinary skill in the art to establish such threshold amounts as dose thresholds).
It is noted that the language of claim 20 differs from claim 10 in that claim 20 recites that the calculated value is the UV radiation dose, not the UV radiation dose threshold value of claim 10.
Assuming this claim language is intentional, Lalicki and Trapani do not clearly teach that the calculation of UV radiation dose in the space is influenced or based on the detection of a human presence in the space.
However, Ohashi teaches the system discussed with respect to claim 9 above, wherein the system is configured to track the accumulated ultraviolet irradiation dosage that persons detected moving through an environment are exposed to (ultraviolet sensors 121A-B calculate an ultraviolet irradiation dose amount based on an ultraviolet illuminance and irradiance time and accumulates the ultraviolet irradiation amount for a specific period which is recorded as an accumulated ultraviolet irradiation dose amount—[0131]), particularly calculating the accumulated dosage received by each person with respect to at a reference time point at which the person enters a space of the environment (the specific period is a period from a predetermined reference time point, for example, a time point at which a person carrying the ultraviolet sensor enters the specific space, to a current time point—[0132]). A controller determines a maximum allowable irradiation amount for the space in which the person is detected based upon the accumulated ultraviolet irradiation amount associated with each person in the environment and an allowable limit value, and the controller controls ultraviolet light sources so that the maximum allowable ultraviolet irradiation amount is not exceeded ([0134]). The configuration of the system of Ohashi allows for environmental sterilization to be achieved without exposing humans to unsafe levels of ultraviolet irradiation (see [0118]-[0120]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adapt the method of Lalicki such that calculating the UV radiation dose includes calculating an accumulated UV radiation dose associated with a person starting form a time they are detected entering the room, as seen in Ohashi ([0131]-[0132]), for the benefit of enabling the system to be controlled to prevent exposing persons detected in the environment to unsafe dosages of ultraviolet radiation (see Ohashi at [0134], and [0118]-[0120]).
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karitonas et al. (US 2022/0088244 A1, filed 21 Sep. 2021) in view of Ufkes (US 2020/0206375 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Karitonas teaches embodiments of a UV light monitoring system (100, 500), a main embodiment thereof including at least one UV light monitor (110) equipped with a UV sensor (120) (UV light monitor 110 capable of measuring UV irradiance including a sensor 120 that is capable of detecting UV light—[0043]; multiple UV light monitors 110—[0047]), a controller (processor 105) which is provide as either a part of the UV monitor (110), part of a separate controller module (115), or distributed across both (processor 105 can be a microcontroller which is a component of disinfection process controller 115, integrated within UV light monitor 110, or representing distributed computing capabilities located within both—[0042]), and a UV emitter, all of which are in communication with each other (UV light monitor 110 includes communication interfaces for transmitting and receiving data and control signals to and from other components of system 100, such as controller 115, other UV light monitors 110, and a UV emitter—[0045]; controller 115, if present, includes a similar communication interface—[0046]).
The controller (105) calculates a UV irradiance at a target surface ([0086]) based on an equation (Equation [2] at [0055]) which includes inputs of UV irradiance (Im) measured by the UV sensor (120), the ambient UV irradiance (IA), an angle (ϴm) between the direction of emitted UV light and the normal of the plane of the sensor 120, the angle (ϴt) between the normal of a target surface and the emitted UV light, the distance (dt) of the emitter from the target surface, and the distance (dm) of the UV sensor from the emitter (600) (angles and distances defined at [0050], measured irradiance defined at [0051], ambient irradiance defined at [0056]; Fig. 6 shows relative position of UV sensor 120, target surface 610, and UV emitter 600, with the distances and angles input to the equation labeled). Thus, it is evident that the controller (processor 105) must receive the irradiance measurement (Im) from the UV sensor (120) and receive other information about the space (i.e., the relative positioning and orientation of system components and the ambient UV irradiance; in some embodiments, the angles can be determined form an angle meter incorporated into the UV monitor 110—[0052]—the distances can be determined from a distance measuring component of the UV light monitor 110—[0057]—and the ambient irradiance can be determined by the UV sensor 120 when the UV emitter is off—[0054]) in order to calculate the UV irradiance.
Karitonas further indicates that operation of the system further includes determining a threshold dose required to achieve a desired kill level for a target pathogen ([0087]:exposure time may be derived or obtained from a reference table, data sheet or other such source of information relating to the target pathogen or pathogens. For example, if pathogen X requires a dose of 10 mJ/cm.sup.2 to achieve a log 4 kill level and the calculated irradiance is 0.01 mW/cm.sup.2, the process time can be determined as 1000 seconds), and controlling the UV emitter to operate for a disinfection cycle time which is determined based on the target dosage and calculated irradiance ([0087]-[0088]). These steps are fairly implied to be performed by the controller (processor 105), optionally in conjunction with control module (process controller 115).
It is noted that other embodiments of the system of Karitonas generally operate similarly (UV light monitor 315 can include any combination of the features of the UV light monitor 110—[0075]—is in communication with an emitter 310 and controller 325—[0076]—and the controller sends control signals to the UV emitter 310 and UV light monitor 315 to retrieve UV irradiance data from UV light monitor 315—[0078]; system 500 includes a processor 505 and UV light monitor 510, wherein processor could be part of a process controller similar to process controller 325—[0094]—the UV light monitor 510 includes a UV sensor 525 whish is the same as sensor 120—[0096]—and equations can be used to calculate the irradiance on the target surface based on measurements made by sensor 525—[0099])
Accordingly, Karitonas teaches a UV based microorganism inactivation system (system 100 with disinfection process controller 115—[0041]; disinfection is defined a process by which pathogenic microorganisms are disabled, killed, or rendered inert—[0037]), comprising:
at least one UV source (600), configured to emit UV radiation (UV emitter is defined as a device capable of emitting UV light—[0036]; UV emitter 600—Fig. 6, [0050])
at least one UV sensor (120), located at a known location with respect to the at least one UV source (UV light monitor 110 is a device capable of measuring UV irradiance, including at least one sensor 120 capable of detecting UV light—[0043]; processor 105 determines the current position of a UV light monitor 110 within a space relative to a reference surface, such as a face of UV emitter—[0061]—processor 105 also stores the determined position—[0064]—such that position of UV sensor 110/120 is clearly known); and
a controller (processor 105, which may be a component of process controller 115—Fig. 1, [0042]) configured to:
receive UV radiation measurements (Im) from the at least one UV sensor (as discussed above, processor 105 calculates a UV irradiance at a target surface—[0086]—based on an equation which includes as an input an irradiance measurement Im from a UV sensor 120—see [0051], and Equation 2 at [0055]; thus, the processor 105 clearly receives a UV radiation measurement Im)
receive information related to an internal space accommodating the at least one UV source and the at least one UV sensor (as discussed above, to calculate the irradiance at a target surface the processor must receive information about the internal space including ambient UV irradiance IA, angles ϴm and ϴt between the direction of emitted UV light and the normal of the plane of the sensor 120 and the plane of the target surface, and the distances dt and dm of the emitter and the UV sensor from the target—see Fig. 6, [0050]-[0051] and [0055]-[0057]);
calculate the UV irradiance at one or more locations (target surface) in the internal space based on the received measurements (processor 105 calculates a UV irradiance on a target surface—[0086]—based on equation [2] provided at [0055]);
receive an upper UV radiation dose threshold value (as discussed above, [0087] implies the controller receives a target UV threshold required for a desired kill level on a target pathogen); and
control the at least one UV source based on the calculated irradiance and based on the upper UV radiation dose threshold value (as discussed above, [0087]-[0088] indicate that the emitter is controlled to operate for a disinfection cycle time that is determined based on the calculated irradiance at the target surface and the target UV threshold value).
Karitonas differs from the claimed configuration of the controller in that Karitonas indicates that an irradiance at the target surface is calculated by the controller and the calculated value influences how the UV source is controlled, whereas the claim requires that a UV dosage is calculated by the controller (a UV dose is total/cumulative irradiance received by a surface over a given time, whereas irradiance is the power received by a surface per unit area—see Karitonas at [0034]-[0035]).
However, in the analogous art of UV-C disinfection systems (title, abstract), Ufkes teaches a UV-C disinfection apparatus (100) comprising UV-C emitters (104), a controller (112), and UV-C sensors (114) ([0044]), wherein the controller (112) calculates a UV-C dosage received at a zone of a space based on an amount of UV-C radiation collected by the UV-C sensor (114) and the controller determines or receives a UV-C dosage threshold (Controller 112 has a set of instructions stored thereon to measure a “kill dose” according to the amount of reflected UV-C radiation collected by UV-C sensor 114 and kill dose parameters stored in memory. Controller 112 may calibrate various kill dose thresholds depending on the specific disinfection application. For example, viruses may require a lower kill dose, while bacteria may require a higher kill dose, and spores may require yet a higher kill dose—[0044]; controller 112 may adjust the kill dose threshold based on a distance input defined by ranging sensor 116—[0045]). In operation, the controller activates the UV sources (Fig. 8, 504) to deliver UV radiation to a first zone, the UV-sensors receive UV radiation (506), a dosage of received UV-C radiation is determined (508), and the controller continues the delivery of UV radiation to the first zone until the measured UV dosage meets a UV dose threshold, at which point the UV sources are deactivated and the UV source is rotated to a different zone (Fig. 8, [0058]; also see [0050]). Ufkes further indicates that UV dose is calculated as the product of UV intensity/irradiance (power per unit area) and exposure time ([0003]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration of the controller of Karitonas such that the controller continuously (or substantially continuously) calculates a UV dosage received at a target surface (i.e., by integrating the calculated irradiance over time) and controls the UV sources to continue emitting UV light until the calculated UV dosage reaches or approaches a UV dose threshold value (as substantially seen in Ufkes) for the benefit of ensuring that an effective dosage of UV radiation is delivered to a target surface for disinfection (consider Ufkes at [0055] discussing how the system operates to achieve an effective kill dose).
Regarding claim 3, Karitonas in view of Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1. Karitonas teaches a disinfection cycle time is determined based on a calculated UV irradiance and a target UV dose (Fig. 4, step 430—[0087]), and the UV emitter is activated for the disinfection cycle time (step 435, Fig. 4, [0088]). Accordingly, Karitonas fairly suggests controlling the at least one UV source comprises at least limiting an emitting time.
Regarding claim 5, Karitonas in view of Ufkes teaches the system of claim 3. As discussed with respect to claim 3 above, Karitonas teaches controlling the emitting time of the UV light source such that a target UV dosage is achieved ([0087]-[0088], Fig. 4), which fairly amounts to controlling the at least one UV source by extending an emitting time of the UV radiation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karitonas et al. (US 2022/0088244 A1) in view of Ufkes (US 2020/0206375 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Gostein et al. ("Accurate measurement of UV irradiance in module-scale UV exposure chambers, including spectral & angular response of sensor," 2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Portland, OR, USA, 2016, pp. 0863-0866).
Regarding claim 7, Karitonas in view of Ufkes teaches the system according to claim 1. Karitonas teaches that calculating the UV radiation level (irradiance) at one or more locations includes:
receiving a first location (distance from the UV light monitor to the UV emitter is determined, and the distance from each target surface to the UV emitter is also determined—[0085]; sensor 120 can calculate the position of the UV light emitter based on measured irradiances from various sensors—[0058]) and orientation of the at least one UV source in the internal space (angle θ m of UV light emitted by emitter 600 relative to the normal of the plane of sensor 120 and angle θt of the UV light emitted by emitter 600 relative to the normal of target surface 610—Fig. 6, [0050]—can be measured by an angle meter—[0052]; processor 105 performs a calculation including θ m and θt –see [0054], equations [1] and [2]—and thus must the processor must receive an input indicating the values for θ m and θt; the distances and angles of the emitter with respect to the sensor surface and target surface fairly define at least a relative location and orientation of the UV source in the internal space);
receiving a second location of the at least one UV sensor in the internal space (processor 105 can determine a current position of UV light monitor 110 within a space relative to a reference surface such as the face of a UV emitter—[0061]; processor 105 records determined position of UV light monitor 110—[0064]; processor 105 can determine an orientation of the UV light monitor relative to a UV light emitter—[0069]);
From the above, Karitonas fairly teaches calculating a UV radiation contribution from one UV source at the one or more locations based on the UV radiation emitting level, the first location, the second location (Equations 1 and 2 require inputs relating to the relative position of the sensor and emitter, as well as the irradiance measured by the UV sensor).
Karitonas also discusses how an ambient light measurement from the UV sensor can be incorporated into the calculations for UV irradiance (equation [2] subtracts a reference UV irradiance from the measured UV irradiance—see [0054]-[0056]), which ambient light measurement fairly defines a type of calibration data which is input into the calculation for UV radiation level at the target surface.
Claim 7 further indicates that the controller receives an angular gain curve for the UV sensor, and receives an angular distribution of a UV radiation beam emitted from the at least one UV source.
The system of Karitonas appears to be based on a model which assumes that the UV sensor behaves with an ideal cosine response curve and that the UV emitter is essentially a point emitter which evenly distributes light in all directions (consider Fig. 6, Equations 1 and 2). Karitonas and Ufkes does not clearly teach the controller receiving an angular gain curve for the UV sensor, and receiving an angular distribution of a UV radiation beam emitted from the at least one UV source, which are used to measure or calculate a UV level or dosage.
However, in the analogous art of UV irradiance measurements (title), Gostein teaches a calibration protocol for measuring UV irradiance that incorporates both a light source spectral and angular distribution as well as a sensor spectral and angular response (Section I., third paragraph). The protocol allows for calculation of an angular correction factor based off of the distribution of the angle of incidence of the light received at a sensor ( F(ϴ) is the fraction per unit angle of the incident irradiance at angle ϴ) and a relative response of the sensor at different angles of incidence (R(ϴ) is the relative response of the irradiance sensor at angle ϴ; see Section II. at Equation 3; also see Fig. 3 showing the angular response, i.e., R(ϴ), for different sensors relative to the ideal cosine function response). Gostein indicates that the correction factor protocol allows for a reduction in the uncertainty of measured UV irradiance values, i.e., more accurate measurements (see title; Section I, paragraphs 1-2, and Section IV, paragraphs 1-2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Karitonas such that it accounts for an angular response curve of the sensor and the angular distribution of emitted light received at the sensor, as suggested Gostein, for the benefit of achieving more accurate measurements of UV irradiance.
It is further noted that claim 7 indicates that the calculated UV radiation level includes calculating a UV radiation contribution from each UV source; the examiner finds that when only one UV source is present, the combined teachings of Karitonas and Gostein discussed above are sufficient to teach the limitations of claim 7.
Claims 22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2021/0346542 A1, cited in the IDS filed 22 January, 2026).
Regarding claim 22, Pan teaches a method which includes receiving geometrical information related to an internal space comprising one or more walls (process 104 employs 3D modeling of room dimensions and furniture positioning inside the room, and the 3D model representing surfaces of floors, walls, ceilings, room fires, and furniture within the room—Fig. 1, [0019]; the modeling module 224 receives input images or measurements of the target environment 230 to construct the 3D model—Fig. 2, [0019]);
receiving UV radiation emitting level of each one of the one or more UV sources (the positions of UVGI sources are determined based on the shape, intensity, and rating of the UVGI source—[0020]; the intensity of a UVGI source is a UV radiation emitting level);
determining locations (process block 106 and 110-160 may be repeated for one or more alternative positions of the UVGI sources in the target room to aid a user in determining where the UVGI source or sources should be in position for efficient disinfecting of the target environment, particularly with respect to determining an optimal location for the UV source where the required exposure time for spots of interest is minimized—[0024]) of the one or more UV sources on the one or more walls (UVGI sources may be in fixtures that may be attached to the ceiling or walls of an environment such as a room—[0020]) such that UV radiation at one or more locations (at blocks 110-150, the process selects a location in the room, determines at least a UV intensity received at the selected spot, saves the determined UV intensity into the 3D, and repeats the process for all locations of interest in the room—Fig. 1, [0021]-[0022]) in the internal space will be optimized (reporting block 170 may identify problem locations in the target environment with low UV exposure—[0023]).
The process of Pan guides a user in placing one or more UV radiation sources in the internal space (information presented to an operator indicates a location in a room to place the UVGI source and a minimum exposure time for efficient disinfection of that room—see [0031]; user may want to determine where the UVGI source or sources should be positioned within the target environment—see [0024])
Pan does not explicitly in establishing that determining the optimal placement of the UVGI sources in the room is necessarily directed toward maintaining variations in UV radiation below a predetermined value.
However, Pan discusses the process including a step of providing an indication of a required exposure time associated with each location of interest within the room, the required exposure time being a time required to apply a target UV dose to the location based on the UV intensity and position of a UV source (see [0021]-[0023]). Pan further indicates an optimal UV source placement is a placement which minimizes the required exposure time for every location of interest in the room (An optimal location for the UV source may be selected to be the location that minimizes the maximum of the required exposure times for the spots of interest—[0024]), and that the location of interest with the highest required exposure time sets the minimum cycle time for a disinfection process within the room (In general, the duration of a disinfection process when the UV source is at a particular location needs to be longer than the maximum of the required exposure times for the spots of interest—[0024]). Accordingly, from the teachings of Pan, it is evident to a person having ordinary skill in the art that an arrangement of UV sources within a room which results in a location of interest having a much lower received UV intensity than other locations of interest would be unfavorable, because the significantly lower UV intensity location would have a higher required exposure time and necessitate a longer disinfection cycle time; also, when UV intensities vary drastically, the relatively long required disinfection cycle time could overexpose and cause damage to surfaces which receive high UV intensity. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Pan such that the determination of optimal UV source placement further seeks to minimize variations in UV intensity between locations of interest such that the variations are below a threshold value for the benefit of allowing the disinfection cycle to be completed in the shortest effective amount of time while reducing potential damage to surfaces from excessive UV exposure.
Regarding claim 24, Pan teaches the method of claim 22. Pan further teaches the internal space comprises a floor (3D model from block may represent surfaces inside the room, including floors, walls, ceiling, fixtures, and furniture—[0019]) and wherein the one or more locations (locations of interest) in the internal space are located between one to two meters above the floor (process block 110 represents selecting a location of interest int eh target environment 230—[0021]; process 100 branches back to process block 110 which selects a next location in the target environment, wherein the locations to be analyzed may be distributed across all surfaces define by the 3D model of the target environment—[0022]; accordingly, the locations at which UV radiation are calculated in Pan fairly includes wall surfaces one to two meters above the floor).
Regarding claim 25, Pan teaches the method according to claim22, wherein determining locations of one or more UV sources on the one or more walls is further such that UV radiation doses at the one or more locations in the internal space over a first pre-determined period of time will not decrease below a first UV radiation dose (determine a target UV dose for disinfection of selected microbes from a room or environment 102—[0017]-[0018]; process block 140 determines a required exposure time needed for UVGI sources to apply the target UV dose—[0021]; Fig. 3 illustrates a report showing surfaces with contour plots 310 and 320 representing UV intensity or RET for disinfection…block 170 includes presenting information identifying problem locations with low UV exposure or long RETs—[0023]; process 100 determines requires exposure times at all spots of interest int the environment for each alternative locations of the UV source, wherein the duration of a disinfection process needs to be longer than the highest required exposure time of a spot of interest—[0024]; accordingly, Pan suggests positioning and operating the system so that a minimum UV radiation dose is delivered to the environment within a period of time).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 20210346542 A1), as applied to claim 22 above, in view of Gostein et al. (2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Portland, OR, USA, 2016, pp. 0863-0866).
Regarding claim 23, Pan teaches the method of claim 22. Pan further teaches determining the locations of the one or more UV sources comprises calculating UV radiation doses at the one or more locations in the internal space based on the UV radiation emitting level and calibration data (the positions of UVGI sources may be determined using the specifications of each UVGI source, including the shape intensity, or rating of the UVGI source….process block 106 uses characterization data including calibration data of UVGI sources 242, including the shape and intensity of UVGI sources—[0020])
Pan does not indicate determining the locations includes calculating UV dose based on an angular gain curve. Pan does discuss alternative techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of UVGI at room locations by measuring the intensity or dose of UVGI with a dosimeter ([0012]).
Furthermore, Gostein teaches the protocol discussed with respect to claim 7 above, wherein UV irradiation measurements are made which account for the angular gain curve associated with a UV sensor in order to improve the accuracy of the irradiation measurements (see rejection of claim 7 above). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include within the method of Pan a step of validating the model forecasts by measuring UV radiation doses at locations of interest with a UV sensor using the protocol of Gostein for the benefit of providing accurate UV irradiation readings which confirm whether or not the positions of UV sources suggested by the model are achieving the desired results.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2021/0346542 A1), as applied to claim 22 above, in view of Ohashi et al. (US 2023/0414805 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Pan teaches the method according to claim 22. As discussed with respect to claim 25, Pan teaches determining locations of one or more UV sources on the one or more walls is further such that UV radiation doses at the one or more locations in the internal space over a first pre-determined period of time will not decrease below a first UV radiation dose (see rejection of claim 25). Pan does not particularly indicate that the determination of the UV source location further includes ensuring that UV radiation doses at the one or more locations in the internal space over a second predetermined period of time will not exceed a second UV radiation dose.
However, in the analogous art of microorganism inactivation methods (title, abstract), Ohashi teaches the system discussed with respect to claims 9 and 20 above, wherein the system sets an allowable maximum irradiation amount and operates to ensure that persons in the environment are not exposed to unsafe dosages of UV radiation which exceed the allowable maximum irradiation amount (abstract, [0019], [0028]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Pan such that the UV sources are arranged and configured to ensure that UV radiation dosages delivered over a period of time to positions where people may be present do not exceed a predetermined threshold for the benefit of reducing potential damage to human eye or skin cells (see Ohashi at [0092], [0020], [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Butler (US 2023/0285610 A1, with PCT filed 04 June, 2021) teaches systems and method for the ultraviolet treatment of medical imaging systems (title), and discusses a mathematical model which can be used in device design to optimize the number and placement of UV sources relative to target surfaces, which can include an iterative method of optimization of source placements to maximize for surface intensity ([0120]). The model is generally based on a set of equations ([0019]) which assumes that the intensity of light received at a surface is proportional to the power of the light source and the cosine of the angle of incidence between the direction of light and the normal of surface, and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the surface and light source. Additionally, the model can be used to calculate surface dose by integrating surface intensity over time ([012).
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
Prosecution Insights