DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/26 has been entered.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 8 of paragraph [0004], it appears that the word "raging" should be changed to --ranging--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al (USPAP 2024/0207115) in view of Breed et al (USPAP 2009/0066065) and either Song et al (USPAP 2022/0252712) or Santra et al (USPAP 2019/0227156), and further in view of any one of Jiang (USP 11,582,853), Mori et al (USPAP 2019/0391266) and Sano et al (USPAP 2022/0146648.
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 the light source 20 shown in figure 2 can be a UV-C LED), comprising:
a mmWave sensor configured to detect a living organism using a micro-Doppler effect (as indicated in the previous office action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Ohashi et al's proximity sensor 32, which is configured to detect living organisms, can be a mmWave sensor using micro-Doppler effect, i.e., such would have been obvious from the teachings of Breed et al when taken together with either Song et al or Santra et al, as indicated in the paragraph bridging pages 3-4 of the previous office action) and measure a distance in three-dimensional space between the UV-C LED and the living organism (the inherent function of Ohashi et al's proximity sensor 32 is to measure a distance in three-dimensional space between Ohashi et al's UV-C LED and the living organism, note that the enclosed space referred to throughout Ohashi et al is inherently a three-dimensional space); and
a controller (control unit 16 shown in Ohashi et al's figure 2) programmed to receive the measured distance and calculate an irradiance at a location of the living organism (inherently or obviously from what is indicated in paragraphs [0085] through [0087] of Ohashi et al, control unit 16 will include some type of processor programmed to receive the measured distance between the light source and the living organism and, in response thereto, such processor will calculate the irradiance at the location of the living organism) based on the measured distance using an inverse square relationship and dynamically modulate a power output of the UV-C LED (although Ohashi et al does not disclose that the calculation of the irradiance by the above-noted processor uses an inverse square relationship, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to calculate an irradiance at the location of a living organism using a measured distance and an inverse square relationship, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Jiang, see column 3, lines 47-65 and also column 4, lines 1-9 of this reference, the motivation for using Jiang’s teaching in Ohashi et al is to provide a specific way of controlling the variable irradiance power output of Ohashi et al’s UV-C LED in response to the variable distance that the LED is away from the living organism) and dynamically modulate 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 (inherently or obviously when Ohashi et al's control unit 16 performs the function of calculating an irradiance at a location of the living organism based on the measured distance between the light source and the living organism using an inverse square relationship, as taught by Jiang, the calculated irradiance at the location of the living organism will be maintained at or below a predetermined actinic exposure threshold). Applicant should also note paragraph [0036] of Mori et al (USPAP 2019/0391266) which discloses that the intensity of light output from a light source attenuates in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between the light source and a target, and also note paragraph [0132] of Sano et al (USPAP 2022/0146648) which discloses that the intensity of a light source attenuates in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between the light source and a subject--where the target in Mori et al and the subject in Sano et al can obviously be living organisms—note that these disclosures by Mori et al and Sano et al provide further motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the irradiance output power of Ohashi et al’s UV-C LED based on the measured distance between the light source and the living organism using an inverse square relationship, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art of disinfection using UV light would have easily recognized, from Mori et al and Sano et al, that the irradiance power provided by the UV-C LED at the location of the living organism would attenuate at an inverse square relationship between the output power of the LED and the measured distance between the LED and the living organism, and therefore the output power of Ohashi et al’s UV-C LED should obviously be adjusted, i.e., reduced or increased, based on the measured distance between the light source and the living organism using an inverse square relationship.
As to claims 2-4, the functional limitations recited in these three claims will all be inherent when the Ohashi et al figure 2 UV irradiation apparatus 100 shown in figure 2 is modified as noted above, i.e., so that control unit 16 operates to calculate the irradiance at the location of the living organism based on the measured distance between light source 20 and the living organism using an inverse square relationship.
As to claim 5, as noted in the previous office action, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a fail-safe mechanism that triggers a shutdown of Ohashi et al's light source 20 if an error is detected in measurements or power control processes, i.e., such was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention, one example of this concept being disclosed by Henderson et al (USPAP 2022/0395599), note paragraph [0058] of this reference which indicates that the proximity sensor for detecting when the light source gets too close to the living organism can include a safety shutoff sensor (inherently such a safety shutoff sensor 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).
As to claim 6, as indicated in the previous office action, to the extent that Ohashi et al does not disclose using pulse width modulation techniques in order to increase or decrease the power supply to the light source 20, this limitation also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art that PWM is the typical way of controlling the irradiance power of a light source, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claims 7-12 and 14-18, the limitations of these claims similarly would have been obvious from the above-noted teachings of the prior art, i.e., using the same analysis as noted above with regard to claims 1-6 (the limitation of updating an actinic dosage limit as recited in claims 10 and 17 would have been obvious from Breed et al, note the last four lines of paragraph [0110] of this reference).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maa et al (USPAP 2022/0152253) also discloses using ultraviolet light for disinfecting surfaces, note that this reference also discloses a distance sensor which monitors the distance between the light source and the living organism, and automatically reduces the power output of the light source if it gets too close to the living organism, similar to the above-noted teachings in Ohashi et al, i.e., the limitations of claims 1-12 and 14-18 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from Maa et al in view of Breed et al and either Song et al or Santra et al, and further in view of Jiang, using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection based on Ohashi et al's figure 2.
Conclusion
5. 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 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 2842 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights