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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung US 20070231193 A1.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Jung teaches: A system for centrally controlled sanitization of a lavatory of an aircraft using ultraviolet (UV) light, the system comprising: a first UV light source configured to emit a first UV light; a second UV light source configured to emit a second UV light; and a central controller coupled to the first UV light source and the second UV light source and configured to independently control the first UV light source and the second UV light source to emit the first UV light and the second UV light at least one of at different times or for different durations. (Jung [0047]-[0049],[0058],[0069]-[0072],[0075]-[0078],[0085]-[0086],[0095],[0114],[0135]-[0136],[0141]- [0148])
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Jung teaches: further comprising at least one sensor configured to detect data corresponding to usage of the lavatory, wherein the central controller is further configured to control at least one of the first UV light source or the second UV light source based on the data corresponding to the usage of the lavatory. (Jung [0047]-[0049],[0058],[0069]-[0072],[0075]-[0078],[0085]-[0086],[0095],[0114],[0135]-[0136],[0141]- [0148])
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Jung teaches: A method for centrally controlled sanitization of a lavatory of an aircraft using ultraviolet (UV) light, the method comprising: providing, in the lavatory, a first UV light source configured to emit a first UV light and a second UV light source configured to emit a second UV light; and independently controlling, by a central controller, the first UV light source and the second UV light source to emit the first UV light and the second UV light at least one of at different times or for different durations. (Jung [0047]-[0049],[0058],[0069]-[0072],[0075]-[0078],[0085]-[0086],[0095],[0114],[0135]-[0136],[0141]- [0148])
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Jung teaches: further comprising detecting, by a sensor, data corresponding to usage of the lavatory, wherein independently controlling the first UV light source and the second UV light source includes controlling at least one of the first UV light source or the second UV light source based on the data corresponding to the usage of the lavatory. (Jung [0047]-[0049],[0058],[0069]-[0072],[0075]-[0078],[0085]-[0086],[0095],[0114],[0135]-[0136],[0141]- [0148])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 3,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung US 20070231193 A1 in view of Dayton US 20160317690 A1.
Regarding Claim(s) 3,6, Jung does not adequately teach: wherein the central controller is further configured to determine a health status of the system including at least one of a remaining life of the first UV light source, a remaining life of the second UV light source, or surface wear experienced by a surface of the lavatory in response to the first UV light or the second UV light.
Dayton teaches: wherein the central controller is further configured to determine a health status of the system including at least one of a remaining life of the first UV light source, a remaining life of the second UV light source, or surface wear experienced by a surface of the lavatory in response to the first UV light or the second UV light. (Dayton [0024])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to augment the control system taught in Jung with the replacement monitoring system taught in Jung for the benefit of ensuring replacement before system failures thereby improving performance and reliability. (Dayton [0024])
Conclusion
1. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN LUCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6493. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
SEAN LUCK
Examiner
Art Unit 2878
/SEAN LUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights