DETAILED ACTION
Response to Pre-Appeal Request for Review
1. In response to applicant’s pre-appeal request for review filed on 07/22/26, new prior art rejections are now set forth which remove the previous reliance on Breed et al, Song et al, Santra et al, Mori et al and Sano et al, i.e., claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are now rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over just Ohashi et al (USPAP 2024/0207115) in view of Jiang (USP 11,582,853), claims 5 and 16 are now rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al in view of Jiang and further in view of Henderson et al (USPAP 2022/0395599), and claim 11 is now rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al in view of Jiang and further in view of Glanz (USPAP 2012/0361810), newly cited. In view of the above-noted new grounds of rejection set forth below, this office action is non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claim 14 is 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.
On the first line of claim 14, “the mathematical algorithm” lacks antecedent basis, and on lines 2-3 of this claim, “the ratio of the current distance to a predefined safety distance” also lacks antecedent basis (note that claim 14 goes back to claim 13 which has been canceled, i.e., it appears that claim 14 should be amended by applicant so as to change “13” on the first line thereof to --12--).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al (USPAP 2024/0207115) in view of Jiang (USP 11,582,853).
As to claim 1, Ohashi et al discloses, in figure 2,
a system for controlling a UV-C LED (note paragraphs [0005] and [0106] of Ohashi et al which indicate that the light source 20 shown in figure 2 can be a UV-C LED), comprising:
a sensor (infrared proximity sensor 32) configured to detect a living organism (the patient referred to on line 3 of Ohashi et al’s abstract) and measure a distance in three-dimensional space between the UV-C LED and the living organism (note that Ohashi et al’s infrared proximity sensor 32 measures a distance between light source 20 and the patient in three-dimensional space); and
a controller (control unit 16) programmed to receive the measured distance (note that Ohashi et al’s control unit 16 is programmed to receive the measured distance between the light source 20 and the patient).
Not disclosed by Ohashi et al are the limitations in claim 1 that the sensor is a millimeter wave sensor which uses a micro-Doppler effect and that the controller calculates an irradiance at a location of the living organism based on the measured distance using an inverse square relationship, and dynamically modulates a power output of the UV-C LED to maintain the calculated irradiance at or below a predetermined actinic exposure threshold at the location of the living organism.
Jiang discloses using a distance sensor s11 which can be a millimeter wave sensor (see column 6, lines 35-37 of Jiang, and note that mmW sensors are known in the art to use micro-Doppler effect) for use in detecting the distance between an LED light source (see column 2, line 26, of Jiang) and a living organism (see column 2, line 13, of Jiang), and also discloses a controller s31 (see column 3, line 16, of Jiang) which calculates an irradiance (irradiance value Es, see column 3, line 14, of Jiang) at a location of the living organism based on the measured distance using an inverse square relationship, and dynamically modulates a power output of the LED to maintain the calculated irradiance at or below a predetermined actinic exposure threshold at the location of the living organism (see column 1, line 65 through column 4, line 9 of Jiang, and in note particular equations (1) through (6) described by Jiang in column 3, line 47 through column 4, line 54 which show that the Jiang controller s31 calculates the irradiance Es at a location of the living organism based on the measured distance d between the light source and the living organism, note that controller s31 uses an inverse square relationship, as indicated at column 3, lines 50-52, of Jiang, and note further that Jiang’s controller s31 dynamically modulates a power output of the light source to maintain the calculated irradiance at or below a predetermined actinic exposure threshold (Eharm) at the location of the living organism).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to modify Ohashi et al’s figure 2 so as to replace the infrared proximity sensor 32 with a millimeter wave sensor such as that disclosed by Jiang, the motivation for this substitution being to obtain the well-known advantages of a mmW sensor vis-à-vis the infrared sensor 32 of Ohashi et al, i.e., improved accuracy and the ability to work in both light or dark environments. The substitution of Jiang’s mmW sensor in place of Ohashi et al’s infrared sensor also would have been obvious under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 82 USPQ2d at 1395-1396, i.e., such would be just an obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, note MPEP section 2143, section I, example (B). Applicant should also note that such a substitution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because using a millimeter wave sensor in Ohashi would permit the instantaneous distance between the light source 20 and the living organism to be determined in real-time or at a specific time interval, as indicated by Jiang at column 6, lines 13-16, thus providing one of ordinary skill in the art with additional motivation to use a millimeter wave sensor such as that taught by Jiang in place of Ohashi et al’s infrared proximity sensor 32. Finally, note that Ohashi et al indicates at paragraph [0066] that infrared proximity sensor 32 can be other types of sensors, i.e., Ohashi et al does not limit the infrared proximity sensor 32 shown in Ohashi et al’s figure 2 to only being this of type sensor.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Jiang’s controller s31 for Ohashi et al’s controller 16 so that Ohashi et al’s controller 16 calculates an irradiance at a location of the living organism based on the measured distance using an inverse square relationship, and dynamically modulating the power output of Ohashi et al’s light source 20 to maintain the calculated irradiance at or below a predetermined actinic exposure threshold at the location of the organism, as taught by Jiang, supra. The motivation for using such a teaching in Ohashi et al’s figure 2 is simply to use any known way of controlling the power output of Ohashi et al’s UV-C LED light source 20 in order to keep it within a safe limit so that it does not harm the living organism, i.e., the patient. Applicant should note that such a modification to Ohashi et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, as indicated in example (A) of MPEP 2143, section I. Moreover, using the controller 16 of Ohashi et al to calculate an irradiance at a location of the living organism based on the measured distance using an inverse square relationship, and then dynamically modulating the power output of Ohashi et al’s light source 20 to maintain the calculated irradiance at or below a predetermined actinic exposure threshold at the location of the organism, as taught by Jiang, is just an obvious application of a known technique to a known device, see example (D) of MPEP 2143, section I. Also note that replacing Ohashi et al’s controller 16 with Jiang’s controller s31 also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, again note example (B) in section I of MPEP 2143.
As to claim 2, note that when Ohashi et al’s controller 16 is replaced with Jiang’s controller s31, the controller will employ a dynamic adjustment algorithm (again note equations (1) through (6) in column 3, line 47 through column 4, line 54 of Jiang) to determine the adjusted power level of the UV-C LED to ensure that the UV-C irradiance level Es remains below a maximum allowable exposure level (Eharm) as the living organism’s distance away from the light source changes.
As to claim 3, note that Jiang’s dynamic adjustment algorithm, when incorporated into the system shown in Ohashi et al’s figure 2, will calculate a proximity ratio (note the various ratios shown in equations (1) through (6) in column 3, line 47 through column 4, line 54 of Jiang) based on the measured distance and a predefined safety parameter, i.e., the measured distance is d, the predefined safety parameter is the stored value Eharm, and the dynamic adjustment algorithm will operate to adjust the power level of Ohashi et al’s UV-C LED as a function of the proximity ratio.
As to claim 4, note paragraph [0086] of Ohashi et al which indicates that light source 20 can be turned off, i.e., the activated, to ensure safety, and therefore when control unit 16 of Ohashi et al is replaced with the control unit s31 of Jiang, the above-noted predefined safety parameter Eharm will form a safety threshold that, when exceeded, causes Ohashi et al’s UV-C LED to be deactivated to ensure safety.
As to claim 6, note paragraph [0086] of Ohashi et al which discloses reducing the power output of the light source 20 by changing the duty ratio, i.e., this suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that the modified controller in Ohashi et al can obviously use pulse-width modulation (PWM) techniques to adjust the power supplied to the UV-C LED.
As to claims 7-10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 (note that a plurality of millimeter sensors, as recited on the second line of claim 18, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that a plurality of the Ohashi et al figure 2 systems could obviously be used simultaneously, where each of the figure 2 systems would obviously include its own infrared proximity sensor 32).
4. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al (USPAP 2024/0207115) in view of Jiang (USP 11,582,853), as applied to claims 1, 7 and 12 above, and further in view of Henderson et al (USPAP 2022/0395599).
Ohashi et al as modified above by Jiang does not disclose a fail-safe mechanism that triggers a shutdown of the UV-C LED if an error is detected in distance measurement or power control/adjustment processes.
Henderson et al discloses, in paragraph [0058], a system using a proximity sensor for detecting when a light source gets too close to a living organism, and that the system can include a safety shut off sensor which will trigger shutdown of the light source if an error is detected in either distance measurements or power control processes, i.e., for the situation where the light source gets too close to the living organism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such a teaching in the system of Ohashi et al as modified above using Jiang, in order to provide further protection to the patient in Ohashi et al in the event that the controller 16 is temporarily unable to perform the necessary safety control of the light source due to an error or the like in either the proximity sensor 32 or the control unit 16, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously recognized that it is more important to stop Ohashi et al’s UV-C from performing its irradiation function when there is the possibility of the distance between the patient and the light source being too low or the LED power being too great and the proximity sensor 32 and/or the controller 16 temporarily are unable to perform their protection functions, which could harm the patient, i.e., in such a situation it would obviously be important to automatically turn off the light source using an automatic shut off mechanism until the error is fixed so that the controller can continue to provide its protection function.
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al (USPAP 2024/0207115) in view of Jiang (USP 11,582,853), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Glanz (USPAP 2021/0361810).
Ohashi et al as modified above by Jiang does not disclose a fail-safe mechanism that triggers if the calculated power level output by the UV-C LED exceeds a safe threshold.
Glanz discloses, in paragraph [0067], using a fail-safe mechanism including an automatic shut off function as part of a set of safety protocols, where the automatic shut off function is activated if a maximum UV dosage is exceeded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an automatic shut off function, such as that disclosed by Glanz, in the method of controlling a UV-C disinfection system of Ohashi et al as modified above using Jiang, the motivation for such being to protect a user from dangerous overexposure to UV-C light, i.e., to protect an individual within the above-noted three-dimensional space from being exposed to harmful UV-C radiation should the UV-C light inadvertently exceed a predetermined limit value.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ismail (USP 11,648,332) discloses another example of using an automatic shut off mechanism in a disinfecting system which uses a UV light source which could damage a user’s skin or eyes if there is an error or disruption in the operating configuration thereof, for the purpose of improving safety of the device, see column 6, lines 11-21 of this reference.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights