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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 2 of Claim 2, delete “device” and insert --devices--;
in line 1 of Claim 5, insert --one or more-- before “sanitization protocols”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing module” and “configurable sanitizing mechanisms” and “sanitizing protocols” in claim 1; “sensing device” in claim 2; “query and response process” and “data analysis process” and “data model” in claim 3; “interface means” in claims 8 and 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure(s) for the “processing module” includes a standalone computing device (Specification, [0055]) and a control unit (Specification, [0130] and [0135]). The corresponding structure(s) for the “configurable sanitizing mechanisms” includes one or more UV light emitting devices, one or more sanitization chemicals having one or more dispensing means, and one or more purification devices (e.g., air and/or water purification devices) (Specification, [0044]-[0050]), UV lamp (see Figures 5A and 12-14), UV LED bulb (see Figure 5B), liquid hand sanitizer dispenser (see Figure 18). The corresponding structure(s) for the “sanitizing protocols” includes one or more methods of sanitization (e.g., type of sanitization mechanism that should be used and the means of application), an amount (i.e., dosage) of sanitization, a time period of sanitization, safety protocols of the sanitization, and an area of sanitization (e.g., the size and shape of structure needed to accommodate sanitizing the sanitization subject) (Specification, [0065], claim 5). The corresponding structure(s) for the “data model” includes a machine learning functionality and an analytic model (see Specification, [0066]). The corresponding structure(s) for the “interface means” includes one or more of: near-field communication (NFC), radio frequency identification (RFID) technology, and/or any wired and/or wireless communication connection. A wired communication connection includes a Gigabit LAN connection, a Firewire connection, and/or a proprietary computer wired connection. A wireless communication connection includes a wireless local area network (WLAN) communication connection, a cellular communication connection, a Bluetooth communication connection, and/or a ZigBee communication connection (Specification, p. 10 [0054]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, in Claim 2, there is no written description support for corresponding structure(s) for “one or more sensing device” within the Specification. In Claim 3, there is no written description support for corresponding process steps/details for “a query and response process” and “a data analysis process” within the Specification.
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 2-6 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.
In Claim 2, limitation “sensing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In Claim 3, limitations “query and response process” and “data analysis process” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any process steps that perform the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In Claim 3, it is not clear what particular step the limitation “a lookup” is attempting to set forth.
In Claim 4, it is not clear how “power requirements pertaining to … one or more sanitization subjects” affects the step of “determining…one or more sanitization protocols”.
In Claim 5, it is not clear what the limitation “amount of sanitization” is attempting to set forth, whether it is to duration (which was set forth by the limitation “a time period of sanitization”) or number/repetition quantity of runs of a sanitization protocol/process/method or a quantity of sanitization agent to be used.
In Claim 6, it is not clear what specific structures each of the limitations of the claim (i.e. light application, dispensing, purification technology) are attempting to set forth to correspond to “configurable sanitizing mechanisms”, particularly as these limitations appear to set forth a process step rather than a structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Childress (20180064833).
As to Claim 1, Childress (‘833) discloses a method (see Figure 16) comprises:
obtaining, by a processing module (128) of a modular and configurable sanitization system (100) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0052]-[0056]), configuration data pertaining to one or more of: one or more panels (116, 117) of the modular and configurable sanitization system (100), one or more configurable sanitizing mechanisms (118) of the one or more panels (116, 117), and one or more sanitization subjects (104; 114; 200, 202, 204) of the modular and configurable sanitization system (100) (i.e. steps 702 and 714) (see Figures 1 and 16);
determining, by the processing module (128), one or more sanitization protocols based on the configuration data (i.e. step 706) (see Figure 16);
generating, by the processing module (128), one or more sanitizing mechanism configuration instructions to configure the one or more configurable sanitizing mechanisms (i.e. UV light assembly) based on the one or more sanitization protocols and in accordance with the one or more sanitization subjects (104; 114; 200, 202, 204) (i.e. steps 712 and 716) (see entire document, particularly Figure 16, p. 1 [0014];
generating, by the processing module (128), one or more panel configuration instructions to configure the one or more panels (116, 117) based on the one or more sanitization protocols and in accordance with the one or more sanitization subjects (104; 114; 200, 202, 204) (i.e. steps 708 and 718) (see entire document, particularly Figure 16, p. 1 [0013] and [0015]); and
configuring, by the processing module (128), the one or more configurable sanitizing mechanisms (118) and the one or more panels (116, 117) based on the one or more sanitizing mechanism configuration instructions and the one or more panel configuration instructions (see Figures 3-4, 8-12, and 16).
As to Claim 2, Childress (‘833) discloses that the method further comprises:
obtaining, by the processing module (128), sensed data via one or more sensing devices (130) of the modular and configurable sanitization system (100) (i.e. step 700) (see entire document, particularly p. 3 [0045]-[0046], p. 6 [0078] – last 3 lines); and
updating, by the processing module (128), the configuration data with the sensed data (i.e. step 704) (see Figure 16).
As to Claim 3, Childress (‘833) discloses that the obtaining the configuration data comprises receiving, by the processing module (128), one or more data inputs (for example, via 130) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0053]-[0054], p. 6 [0078] – last 3 lines).
As to Claim 4, Childress (‘833) discloses that the configuration data includes sanitization requirements/preferences of the one or more sanitization subjects (104; 114; 200, 202, 204) (see entire document, particularly p. 3 [0048]); and characteristics/default settings (i.e. presence or absence; locked or unlocked) pertaining to one or more of: one or more sanitization subjects (104; 114; 200, 202, 204) (see entire document, particularly p. 3 [0048]).
As to Claim 5, Childress (‘833) discloses that the one or more sanitization protocols includes one or more of: one or more amount of sanitization; and one or more safety protocols; and one or more sanitization areas (e.x. steps 702, 704, 706 and 712) (see entire document, particularly Figure 16, p. 3 [0048], p. 6 [0079] and [0081] – last 7 lines)
As to Claim 6, Childress (‘833) discloses that the one or more sanitizing mechanisms (118) includes ultraviolet (UV) light application (i.e. step 710 - see Figure 16).
As to Claim 7, Childress (‘833) discloses that the one or more sanitization subjects (104; 114; 200, 202, 204) include one of a surface (104); an object (114; 200, 202, 204); and air (i.e. intrinsically air located between the UV light assembly 116 and the surface/object being treated) (see entire document, particularly Figures 4, 8-9, 11-12 and 16, pp. 2-3 [0039], p. 6 [0074], [0077] and [0081] – lines 7-9).
As to Claim 8, Childress (‘833) discloses that the method further comprises: sending, by the processing module (128), the one or more sanitizing mechanism configuration instructions to the one or more configurable sanitizing mechanisms (118) via an interface means (140) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 3 [0049] – lines 3-6).
As to Claim 9, Childress (‘833) discloses that the method further comprises: sending, by the processing module (128), the one or more panel configuration instructions to the one or more panels (via 120 for 116, 117) via an interface means (140) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 3 [0049] – lines 3-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: WO2021202514 and 20210310637 (a method of configuring a mobile sanitizer).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights