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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Prior art relied upon:
Primary Reference: Umenei et al., US 2021/0370826 A1 (“Umenei”)
Secondary Reference 1: Gutowski et al., US 2022/0118952 A1 (“Gutowski”)
Secondary Reference 2: Collins, US 6,697,953 B1 (“Collins”)
Claims 1–4 and 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Umenei (US 2021/0370826 A1) in view of Gutowski (US 2022/0118952 A1), and further in view of Collins (US 6,697,953 B1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Umenei
Umenei teaches:
A method of controlling a vehicle interior sterilization apparatus, the method comprising:
See at least:
“In an alternative embodiment of the invention, FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate … a device having a housing used in the system and method for dual mode disinfection as used in a vehicular interior. Dual mode disinfection means the disinfection of cabin air as well as the surfaces of various vehicle components.” ([0030])
“The disinfection processes 800 starts 801 where a determination is made if the vehicle is occupied 803. If the vehicle is occupied, then the system is switched 805 solely to an air disinfection mode since exposure to UV-C rays within the vehicle cabin may be unwanted by human occupants.” ([0043])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches a method of controlling a vehicle interior sterilization apparatus. Umenei’s housing-based dual-mode UV-C device 600A/600B is a vehicle interior sterilization apparatus, and disinfection process 800 of FIG. 8 is a method of controlling that apparatus through a sequence of determinations and control steps.
determining, by a control unit,
See at least:
“As noted herein, the UV light sources 701, motor 702 and door or shutter 709 are controlled by a multimode auto-configuration controller 711.” ([0040])
“The disinfection processes 800 starts 801 where a determination is made if the vehicle is occupied 803. If the vehicle is occupied, then the system is switched 805 solely to an air disinfection mode since exposure to UV-C rays within the vehicle cabin may be unwanted by human occupants.” ([0043])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the determinations of process 800 are made by a control unit: the UV light sources, motor, and shutter are controlled by the multimode auto-configuration controller 711, which executes the determinations of FIG. 8.
whether a sterilization precondition for a vehicle is satisfied
See at least:
“The disinfection processes 800 starts 801 where a determination is made if the vehicle is occupied 803. If the vehicle is occupied, then the system is switched 805 solely to an air disinfection mode since exposure to UV-C rays within the vehicle cabin may be unwanted by human occupants.” ([0043])
“In the event the vehicle is not occupied, the system can be switched to surface disinfection mode 829. The fan speed internal to the device is adjusted 831 and a look-up table is used to determine UV-C dosage 833. The dosage is typically based on sensor feedback in the cabin environment.” ([0045])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches determining whether a sterilization precondition for the vehicle is satisfied. Process 800 begins with a determination of whether the vehicle is occupied (step 803), and surface sterilization of the cabin is permitted only “[i]n the event the vehicle is not occupied.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the unoccupied state of the vehicle checked at step 803 is a sterilization precondition for the vehicle.
determining, by the control unit, whether a sterilization stability condition is satisfied,
See at least:
“A dosage calculation is made 835 and one or more UV-C light sources are activated 837. A timer is started 839 and another determination is made 841 if the vehicle is occupied.” ([0045])
“As noted herein, the UV light sources 701, motor 702 and door or shutter 709 are controlled by a multimode auto-configuration controller 711.” ([0040])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches determining, by the control unit, whether a sterilization stability condition is satisfied. After the precondition of step 803 is met and the UV-C sources are activated, Umenei makes “another determination … 841 if the vehicle is occupied.” This second, separate check of whether the cabin remains in a safe state for UV-C exposure is a sterilization stability condition, and it is performed by controller 711.
performing, vehicle interior sterilization
See at least:
“This allows the UV-C light rays 609, 611 to contact various high contact interior surfaces of the vehicle including but not limited to the steering wheel 613, seat 615 and/or center console 617.” ([0034])
“A dosage calculation is made 835 and one or more UV-C light sources are activated 837. A timer is started 839 and another determination is made 841 if the vehicle is occupied.” ([0045])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches performing vehicle interior sterilization: in the surface disinfection mode the UV-C sources are activated and the UV-C rays irradiate the high-contact interior surfaces of the vehicle, such as the steering wheel, seat, and center console.
using the vehicle interior sterilization apparatus,
See at least:
“A housing 601 is typically elongated in shape and may be configured with or attached to a vehicle headliner.” ([0033])
“In an alternative embodiment of the invention, FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate … a device having a housing used in the system and method for dual mode disinfection as used in a vehicular interior. Dual mode disinfection means the disinfection of cabin air as well as the surfaces of various vehicle components.” ([0030])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the sterilization is performed using the vehicle interior sterilization apparatus, namely the headliner-mounted housing 601 with its UV-C light sources.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Umenei
Umenei does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
and a user sterilization request signal is received;
when the sterilization precondition is satisfied and the sterilization request signal is received;
determining, by the control unit, whether the sterilization stability condition is satisfied
by comparing a State of Charge (SOC) of a vehicle battery with a first set value
and a second set value greater than the first set value; and
based on determining that the battery operation condition is satisfied,
wherein determining whether the battery operation condition is satisfied comprises:
terminating the vehicle interior sterilization based on a determination that the SOC is equal to or less than the first set value; and
setting an output-limited sterilization mode
to operate a light source unit at a lower output level than a preset reference output
based on a determination that the SOC is greater than the first set value and equal to or less than the second set value.
Disclosure by Gutowski
Gutowski teaches:
and a user sterilization request signal is received;
See at least:
“At 504, method 500 includes determining if the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested. The vehicle sanitizing mode may be requested by a vehicle operator (e.g., a user) via an input device, such as via an HMI (e.g., HMI 196 of FIG. 1), cruise control buttons (e.g., cruise control buttons 134 of FIG. 1), a smartphone app, hard/soft buttons, key fob buttons (e.g., key fob 195 of FIGS. 1 and 2), electronic door keypad buttons, or a pre-programmed combination of such inputs.” ([0076])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches that a user sterilization request signal is received: the controller determines at step 504 whether the vehicle sanitizing mode “is requested by a vehicle operator (e.g., a user) via an input device,” such as an HMI, a smartphone app, key fob buttons, or door keypad buttons. The request so entered is a user sterilization request signal.
when the sterilization precondition is satisfied and the sterilization request signal is received;
See at least:
“Returning to 504, if the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested, method 500 proceeds to 506 and includes determining if vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are met.” ([0081])
“In some examples, the UVGI system 280 may only be activated responsive to an indication that the vehicle is unoccupied, as determined from the output of the occupancy sensors 216.” ([0050])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches making the entry-condition determination when the sanitizing request has been received: “if the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested, method 500 proceeds to 506 and includes determining if vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are met.” Gutowski also activates its UV system only when the vehicle is unoccupied. In the combination, Umenei’s unoccupied-vehicle precondition (step 803) and Gutowski’s received request are the two gates that must be passed before the stability determination is made, which is the claimed sequence.
determining, by the control unit, whether the sterilization stability condition is satisfied
See at least:
“Returning to 504, if the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested, method 500 proceeds to 506 and includes determining if vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are met.” ([0081])
“All of the entry conditions may be confirmed for it to be determined that the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are met.” ([0081])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches determining, by the control unit, whether the sterilization stability condition is satisfied: at step 506 the control system determines whether the sanitizing-mode entry conditions are met, and all of the entry conditions must be confirmed before the routine may run. These entry conditions are a sterilization stability condition.
by comparing a State of Charge (SOC) of a vehicle battery with a first set value
See at least:
“Thus, in such examples, the entry conditions may include the battery SOC being greater than a threshold SOC, the threshold SOC referring to a pre-calibrated non-zero SOC below which there may not be enough electrical energy to complete the sanitization routine.” ([0081])
“As an example, the vehicle conditions may include a status of each vehicle window and door (e.g., open or closed), vehicle occupancy, a key fob proximity, a gear selection (e.g., determined from a gear selector, such as gear selector 108 of FIG. 1), a state of charge (SOC) of a system battery (e.g., energy storage device 150 of FIG. 1)” ([0075])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches that the entry-condition (stability) determination is made by comparing the state of charge of the vehicle battery with a set value: the entry conditions include “the battery SOC being greater than a threshold SOC,” and the SOC is that of the vehicle’s system battery (energy storage device 150). The threshold SOC for the quick clean mode is a first set value.
and a second set value greater than the first set value; and
See at least:
“Similar to the threshold fuel level, the threshold SOC may be different (e.g., higher) for the deep clean mode relative to the quick clean mode.” ([0081])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches a second set value greater than the first set value: “the threshold SOC may be different (e.g., higher) for the deep clean mode relative to the quick clean mode.” The deep-clean threshold SOC is therefore a second set value that is greater than the quick-clean threshold (first set value), and Gutowski’s controller compares the battery SOC against these mode-specific thresholds to determine which sanitizing mode, if any, the battery can support. Both thresholds apply to the same vehicle battery within the same sanitizing routine. Neither depends on whether the vehicle is receiving external power, which is the separate preconditioning context of [0116] and is not relied upon here.
based on determining that the battery operation condition is satisfied,
See at least:
“Thus, the control system may commence operation in the vehicle sanitizing mode responsive to the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions being met when the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested (e.g., by the vehicle operator or according to other pre-programmed criteria).” ([0083])
“On the other hand, if the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are met, method 500 proceeds to 510 and includes activating the vehicle sanitizing mode.” ([0083])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches performing the sanitization based on determining that the battery condition is satisfied: “if the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are met, method 500 proceeds to 510 and includes activating the vehicle sanitizing mode.” Because the battery SOC condition is one of those entry conditions ([0081]), activation is based on determining that the battery operation condition is satisfied.
wherein determining whether the battery operation condition is satisfied comprises:
See at least:
“Thus, in such examples, the entry conditions may include the battery SOC being greater than a threshold SOC, the threshold SOC referring to a pre-calibrated non-zero SOC below which there may not be enough electrical energy to complete the sanitization routine.” ([0081])
“All of the entry conditions may be confirmed for it to be determined that the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are met.” ([0081])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches that determining whether the battery operation condition is satisfied comprises comparing the battery SOC to a threshold as part of the entry conditions, all of which must be confirmed. The specific results of that comparison recited in the following two clauses are addressed below.
terminating the vehicle interior sterilization based on a determination that the SOC is equal to or less than the first set value; and
See at least:
“Thus, in such examples, the entry conditions may include the battery SOC being greater than a threshold SOC, the threshold SOC referring to a pre-calibrated non-zero SOC below which there may not be enough electrical energy to complete the sanitization routine.” ([0081])
“Thus, even if the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested, the sanitization routine will not be executed unless the entry conditions are met. Thus, the powertrain and HVAC system will not be operated in the vehicle sanitizing mode when the vehicle is occupied, a door or window is open, there is not enough fuel (or battery SOC) to complete the sanitization routine, etc.” ([0082])
“Further, although not explicitly shown, if at any point the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are no longer met, even after the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are confirmed and the vehicle sanitizing mode is activated, method 500 may proceed to 508 to inactivate the vehicle sanitizing mode” ([0082])
“Further, sanitization routine parameters, such as the percentage of the sanitization routine that has been completed, the estimated time to completion for the current cycle and/or the sanitization routine, the current cabin temperature, the real-time indication of the fuel level and/or battery state of charge, may continue to be updated in real-time via the smartphone app or other interface.” ([0102])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches terminating the vehicle interior sterilization when the SOC is equal to or less than the first set value. Gutowski’s entry condition is satisfied only when the SOC is “greater than a threshold SOC”; the condition is therefore not met exactly when the SOC is equal to or less than that threshold. When the condition is not met, the routine “will not be executed,” and “if at any point the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are no longer met, even after … the vehicle sanitizing mode is activated, method 500 may proceed to 508 to inactivate the vehicle sanitizing mode.” Gutowski also updates the “battery state of charge … in real-time” during the routine. Gutowski thus teaches monitoring SOC during sanitization and ending the operation when the SOC falls to or below the threshold. Inactivating the sanitizing mode, which includes the UV lights ([0087]–[0088]), is terminating the vehicle interior sterilization.
Motivation to Combine Umenei and Gutowski
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Umenei and Gutowski before them, to modify Umenei’s controller-driven vehicle UV-C sterilization method to (i) receive a user sterilization request from an input device such as a key fob, smartphone app, or HMI, as taught by Gutowski; (ii) after the unoccupied-vehicle precondition is satisfied and the request is received, check Gutowski’s sanitizing-mode entry conditions, including comparing the vehicle battery SOC with a lower threshold and a higher threshold; and (iii) end the UV-C sterilization when the SOC is at or below the lower threshold, including when it falls there during operation. Umenei powers its UV sources from a battery that “may be size[d] for the desired dose, interval and typical use cycle” ([0026]), so Umenei itself recognizes that available battery energy limits how much UV-C sterilization can be delivered. Gutowski supplies the known solution to that problem in the same field of vehicle-interior sanitization: gating the sanitizing routine on battery SOC so that it is not started or continued when there is “not enough electrical energy to complete the sanitization routine” ([0081]) and the vehicle battery is not depleted. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid incomplete sterilization cycles and to preserve enough charge for later vehicle use, and to let the user start sterilization after leaving the vehicle. The modification uses known elements (Umenei’s controller 711 and UV-C sources; Gutowski’s request inputs, entry conditions, and SOC thresholds) according to their established functions with predictable results, and Umenei’s controller already makes sequential go/no-go determinations before and during UV-C operation ([0043]–[0045]), so there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–17 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (G).
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Umenei and Gutowski
After combining the teachings of Umenei and Gutowski, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
setting an output-limited sterilization mode
to operate a light source unit at a lower output level than a preset reference output
based on a determination that the SOC is greater than the first set value and equal to or less than the second set value.
Disclosure by Collins
Collins teaches:
setting an output-limited sterilization mode
See at least:
“In FIG. 6, another power saving option is defined, providing a set of three power saving features and three corresponding battery capacity thresholds, for a battery powered device capable of controlling a backlight. The feature ‘Reduce back-light auto-on time’ is associated with a battery capacity threshold of 50%. Likewise, the feature ‘Reduce back-light intensity’ is associated with a battery capacity threshold of 30%, and the feature ‘Disable back-light’ is associated with a battery capacity threshold of 10%.” (Col. 4, ll. 33–41)
“If the battery capacity determined by controller 150 is less than the battery capacity threshold of 50%, then the feature ‘Reduce back-light auto-on time’ may be invoked by controller 150. If the battery capacity is less than the battery capacity threshold of 30%, then the features ‘Reduce back-light intensity’ and ‘Reduce back-light auto-on time’ may be invoked by controller 150 and if the battery capacity is less than the battery capacity threshold of 10%, the features ‘Disable back-light’, ‘Reduce back-light intensity’, and ‘Reduce backlight auto-on time’ may be invoked by controller 150.” (Col. 4, ll. 55–65)
Rationale:
Collins teaches setting an output-limited mode of a battery-powered light source based on battery capacity. Collins defines a power-saving option with ordered features tied to battery capacity thresholds, including “Reduce back-light intensity” at 30% and “Disable back-light” at 10%, and its controller “invoke[s]” the reduced-intensity feature when the capacity falls below the corresponding threshold. Invoking the reduced-intensity feature places the light source in an output-limited operating mode. Applied to Umenei’s UV-C light sources in the combination, that mode is an output-limited sterilization mode.
to operate a light source unit at a lower output level than a preset reference output
See at least:
“The backlight intensity and search frequency for local IR and RF communications may also be reduced by predetermined values.” (Col. 6, ll. 47–49)
“It will be understood that features may include any function or operation under the control of controller 155 that affects the power draw of the battery of the battery powered device. Thus, features are not limited to those identified in FIG. 4, FIG. 5, and FIG. 6 and may include the clock speed of the controller, the frequency of any operation, the intensity or duration of any operation, or the selection of any operation.” (Col. 5, ll. 38–45)
“There are also a large variety of features possible just by changing intensities, powers, times, and frequencies. Likewise, the battery capacity thresholds may cover the full range of battery capacity and may be grouped at any position in the range of capacity.” (Col. 6, ll. 57–61)
Rationale:
Collins teaches operating the light source at a lower output level than a preset reference output: in the invoked feature, “[t]he backlight intensity … may also be reduced by predetermined values,” i.e., reduced from the normal (preset) intensity at which the light operates when the feature is not invoked. Collins stresses that its features are not limited to a backlight but “may include … the intensity or duration of any operation” under control of the controller and that features may be defined “just by changing intensities, powers, times, and frequencies.” Umenei supplies the light source unit to which this is applied: UV-C sources whose “UV lamp energy is variable” and that are “programmed for variable intensity” ([0026]), operated at a dose set from a look-up table ([0045]) that serves as the preset reference output.
based on a determination that the SOC is greater than the first set value and equal to or less than the second set value.
See at least:
“If the battery capacity determined by controller 150 is less than the battery capacity threshold of 50%, then the feature ‘Reduce back-light auto-on time’ may be invoked by controller 150. If the battery capacity is less than the battery capacity threshold of 30%, then the features ‘Reduce back-light intensity’ and ‘Reduce back-light auto-on time’ may be invoked by controller 150 and if the battery capacity is less than the battery capacity threshold of 10%, the features ‘Disable back-light’, ‘Reduce back-light intensity’, and ‘Reduce backlight auto-on time’ may be invoked by controller 150.” (Col. 4, ll. 55–65)
“If the battery capacity is greater than the battery capacity threshold of 30%, then the features ‘Reduce back-light intensity’ and ‘Disable back-light’ may be revoked by controller 150. If the battery capacity is greater than the battery capacity threshold of 10%, then the feature ‘Disable back-light’ may be revoked by controller 150.” (Col. 5, ll. 2–7)
“The actual battery capacity may be indicative of the state of charge of the battery 110, decreasing as the battery 110 is discharged and increasing as the battery 110 is charged.” (Col. 6, ll. 9–12)
“The algorithm then returns to block 320 and repeats.” (Col. 6, ll. 53–54)
Rationale:
Collins teaches selecting the reduced-output mode when the battery charge is above a lower threshold but not above a higher threshold. Under Collins, when the capacity is below 30% the reduced-intensity feature is invoked, and only when it falls below 10% is the light disabled. Conversely, above 10% the “Disable back-light” feature is revoked, and above 30% the reduced-intensity feature is revoked. Thus, in the band between the lower 10% threshold and the higher 30% threshold, Collins operates the light at reduced intensity rather than turning it off or running it at full intensity. In the combination, Collins’s lower and higher thresholds are Gutowski’s lower (first set value) and higher (second set value) SOC thresholds. Operating in that band is the claimed determination that the SOC is greater than the first set value and equal to or less than the second set value. Collins’s battery capacity is expressly “indicative of the state of charge of the battery” (col. 6, ll. 9–12), and its controller re-evaluates the capacity continuously (“returns to block 320 and repeats”). Collins uses “less than” for invoking a feature, whereas the claim places the upper boundary at “equal to or less than” the second set value. Where the boundary falls exactly at a threshold value is a matter of routine design choice. Collins itself states that the thresholds “may be grouped at any position in the range of capacity” (col. 6, ll. 59–61), and no criticality or unexpected result has been shown for the claimed boundary. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05.
Motivation to Combine Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins before them, to further modify the combined Umenei–Gutowski method so that, when the vehicle battery SOC is above the lower (first) threshold at which sterilization is terminated but not above a higher (second) threshold, the controller sets an output-limited sterilization mode that drives Umenei’s UV-C sources at a reduced intensity below their preset level, as taught by Collins. Collins teaches that it is desirable to reduce power consumption “automatically, without actions by the user,” and “to provide increased power reduction as the battery becomes more discharged,” instead of predetermined savings that “compromise operation of the device all of the time” (col. 1, ll. 40–48). Collins states that its method “may be applicable to any battery powered device with a controller” (col. 5, ll. 13–16) and that its features may include “the intensity or duration of any operation” (col. 5, ll. 38–45). Umenei’s UV-C apparatus is such a battery-powered, controller-driven device, and its light sources already have variable, controller-set intensity (Umenei [0026], [0038]–[0039]). Gutowski already scales its sanitizing routine to the available charge by providing a lower-demand quick clean mode with a lower SOC threshold than the deep clean mode (Gutowski [0078], [0081], [0100]) and allows its UV intensity to be a programmed mode setting (Gutowski [0128]). A PHOSITA would have been motivated to use Collins’s tiered scheme—full output at high charge, reduced light intensity at intermediate charge, and shut-off at low charge—so that the vehicle still receives useful sterilization when charge is limited, rather than none at all, while protecting the battery needed for vehicle operation. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and the result is predictable. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Umenei’s drivers 703 and controller 711 already control UV-C output and Gutowski’s controller already compares SOC against thresholds. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143(I)(C), (D), and (G).
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Umenei
Umenei teaches:
The method of claim 1,
See at least:
The rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Rationale:
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins teaches the method of Claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
wherein determining whether the sterilization precondition is satisfied comprises
See at least:
“The disinfection processes 800 starts 801 where a determination is made if the vehicle is occupied 803. If the vehicle is occupied, then the system is switched 805 solely to an air disinfection mode since exposure to UV-C rays within the vehicle cabin may be unwanted by human occupants.” ([0043])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the step of determining whether the sterilization precondition is satisfied comprises one or more vehicle-state determinations made at the start of process 800 (step 803) before surface sterilization is permitted.
after a passenger exits the vehicle,
See at least:
“The process then starts again 901 until it is determined that persons are no longer occupying the vehicle interior. When it is determined that no persons occupy the vehicle, the UV-C light source(s) are turned to an on or enabled state 919 for the proper dosing cycle” ([0049])
“Detection related to the presence and/or absence of persons within this space is also required in order to know how and when to switch between air or surface treatments. Automating this process allows for frequent disinfection while maintaining a normal operating workflow between users or events.” ([0032])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches making the precondition determination after a passenger exits the vehicle: the UV-C sources remain disabled “until it is determined that persons are no longer occupying the vehicle interior,” and are enabled only “[w]hen it is determined that no persons occupy the vehicle,” so that disinfection occurs “between users or events.”
by the control unit.
See at least:
“As noted herein, the UV light sources 701, motor 702 and door or shutter 709 are controlled by a multimode auto-configuration controller 711.” ([0040])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the determination is performed by the control unit, controller 711.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Umenei
Umenei does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
determining whether the vehicle is in an ignition-off state
and a door is in a locked state
Disclosure by Gutowski
Gutowski teaches:
determining whether the vehicle is in an ignition-off state
See at least:
“the control modules may be placed in the sleep mode following a vehicle key-off event (e.g., a human driver removing a key from a vehicle, leaving the proximity of the vehicle with a key fob, and/or otherwise instructing the vehicle to be in an off/inoperative state” ([0032])
“In other examples, the control modules may be awoken in order to execute one or more afterrun tasks, including diagnostic and non-diagnostic features, to operate in a vehicle sanitizing mode, and/or to perform vehicle preconditioning” ([0032])
“HVAC controller 212 may also receive an indication of the ignition state of engine 110 from an ignition sensor.” ([0049])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches determining whether the vehicle is in an ignition-off state as part of the sanitization logic. Gutowski’s controller receives the ignition state from an ignition sensor, and it wakes the control modules after a “vehicle key-off event” (e.g., the driver removing the key or leaving with the key fob) specifically “to operate in a vehicle sanitizing mode.” Gutowski thus teaches detecting the ignition-off (key-off) state and then running the sanitizing mode. Gutowski’s heat-based routine may also use a running engine, but the UV-C sterilization of Umenei needs no engine heat, so a PHOSITA applying Gutowski’s key-off wake-up to Umenei’s UV-only method would have used the ignition-off state as a precondition.
and a door is in a locked state
See at least:
“Vehicle 200 may further include a key fob sensor 241 configured to receive input from key fob 195.” ([0049])
“provide an indication to HVAC controller 212 regarding the locked or unlocked position of the vehicle doors” ([0049])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches determining whether a door is in a locked state: key fob sensor 241 provides the controller with an indication of “the locked or unlocked position of the vehicle doors.” Using that available lock-state signal as part of the precondition would have been obvious because a locked vehicle whose driver has left it is the typical state in which no one will enter the cabin during UV-C exposure.
Motivation to Combine Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins before them, to further modify the method of Claim 1 so that the sterilization precondition determined by the controller comprises the ignition-off state and the locked-door state after the passenger has left, as taught by Gutowski. Umenei stresses that UV-C exposure “may be unwanted by human occupants” ([0043]) and that “excessive exposure must be avoided” ([0053]), and it runs sterilization only after the occupants have left. Gutowski teaches that the key-off event and the door lock state are signals already available to the vehicle controller and that sanitizing is performed after key-off. A PHOSITA would have used these readily available signals to confirm that the trip has ended and the cabin is secured before the UV-C cycle starts, improving safety and making sterilization occur automatically between uses. This combines known elements for their known functions with predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (G).
This further modification relies on the teachings of Gutowski identified above for Claim 2. It is made to the method of Claim 1, which is itself the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins. The reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 for combining Umenei with Gutowski and Collins apply equally to Claim 2 and are incorporated herein by reference. Claim 2 is therefore rejected over the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Umenei
Umenei teaches:
The method of claim 1,
See at least:
The rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Rationale:
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins teaches the method of Claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
wherein determining whether the sterilization stability condition is satisfied comprises determining that the sterilization stability condition is satisfied,
See at least:
“A dosage calculation is made 835 and one or more UV-C light sources are activated 837. A timer is started 839 and another determination is made 841 if the vehicle is occupied.” ([0045])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches determining that the sterilization stability condition is satisfied as a separate determination (step 841) made after the sterilization precondition is satisfied. Sterilization continues only when that stability check is passed.
by the control unit.
See at least:
“As noted herein, the UV light sources 701, motor 702 and door or shutter 709 are controlled by a multimode auto-configuration controller 711.” ([0040])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the determination is performed by the control unit, controller 711.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Umenei
Umenei does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
when the following conditions are satisfied:
the vehicle is stopped,
a gear parking input is received,
an window of the vehicle is closed,
a door of the vehicle is locked,
a smart key of the vehicle is outside,
seat weight is not detected,
and no object is detected in a rear seat of the vehicle,
Disclosure by Gutowski
Gutowski teaches:
when the following conditions are satisfied:
See at least:
“All of the entry conditions may be confirmed for it to be determined that the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are met.” ([0081])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches that the condition is satisfied only when a set of listed conditions are all satisfied: “All of the entry conditions may be confirmed for it to be determined that the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are met.”
the vehicle is stopped,
See at least:
“Additional inputs to vehicle sanitizing mode feature 708 may be monitored and provided by an I/O signal feature source 732 and may include an engine temperature, an engine speed, an ignition state, a vehicle speed, and a fuel level.” ([0124])
“Further, vehicle sanitizing mode feature 708 may abort responsive to the ignition state being changed (e.g., the vehicle is turned off), the engine being turned off, or the vehicle speed increasing above zero, as indicated by I/O signal feature source 732.” ([0126])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches the condition that the vehicle is stopped: the sanitizing feature monitors vehicle speed and aborts if “the vehicle speed increas[es] above zero.” Continuing only while the speed is zero is a condition that the vehicle is stopped.
a gear parking input is received,
See at least:
“The entry conditions may include, for example, the vehicle being in park, an indication that the vehicle is not occupied, the engine being on, the vehicle doors and windows being closed” ([0081])
“Further, even if initiate trigger 712 is obtained, vehicle sanitizing mode feature 708 may abort, and state machine 710 may exit to inactive state 714, if the pedal/PRNDL input 722 indicates the gear selector is moved from park and/or the pedal is depressed.” ([0126])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches the condition that a gear parking input is received: the entry conditions include “the vehicle being in park,” determined from the PRNDL gear-selector input, and the routine aborts if the gear selector is moved from park.
an window of the vehicle is closed,
See at least:
“The entry conditions may include, for example, the vehicle being in park, an indication that the vehicle is not occupied, the engine being on, the vehicle doors and windows being closed” ([0081])
“As an example, the vehicle conditions may include a status of each vehicle window and door (e.g., open or closed), vehicle occupancy, a key fob proximity, a gear selection (e.g., determined from a gear selector, such as gear selector 108 of FIG. 1), a state of charge (SOC) of a system battery (e.g., energy storage device 150 of FIG. 1)” ([0075])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches the condition that a window of the vehicle is closed: the entry conditions include “the vehicle doors and windows being closed,” determined from the monitored status of each vehicle window.
a door of the vehicle is locked,
See at least:
“The entry conditions may include, for example, the vehicle being in park, an indication that the vehicle is not occupied, the engine being on, the vehicle doors and windows being closed” ([0081])
“provide an indication to HVAC controller 212 regarding the locked or unlocked position of the vehicle doors” ([0049])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches the conditions that the doors are closed and provides the controller with the “locked or unlocked position of the vehicle doors.” Gutowski’s entry list recites closed doors rather than locked doors. It would have been obvious to require the door to be locked, using the lock signal Gutowski already supplies, because a locked door further ensures that no person opens the cabin and is exposed while the UV-C lights are on, which is the safety concern both references address (Umenei [0043], [0053]; Gutowski [0050]).
a smart key of the vehicle is outside,
See at least:
“As an example, the vehicle conditions may include a status of each vehicle window and door (e.g., open or closed), vehicle occupancy, a key fob proximity, a gear selection (e.g., determined from a gear selector, such as gear selector 108 of FIG. 1), a state of charge (SOC) of a system battery (e.g., energy storage device 150 of FIG. 1)” ([0075])
“the control modules may be placed in the sleep mode following a vehicle key-off event (e.g., a human driver removing a key from a vehicle, leaving the proximity of the vehicle with a key fob, and/or otherwise instructing the vehicle to be in an off/inoperative state” ([0032])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches monitoring “a key fob proximity” as one of the vehicle conditions evaluated by the sanitizing method, and it identifies the driver “leaving the proximity of the vehicle with a key fob” as a key-off event after which the sanitizing mode may run. Determining that the smart key (key fob) is outside the vehicle confirms that the driver has left. Including that condition in the conjunctive entry list is taught by, or at least an obvious use of, Gutowski’s key fob proximity condition.
seat weight is not detected,
See at least:
“Each occupancy zone may be equipped with an occupancy sensor 216, which may be configured to identify whether or not a passenger is present in the seat in the corresponding occupancy zone. For example, each occupancy sensor 216 may be a seat weight sensor.” ([0039])
“The entry conditions may include, for example, the vehicle being in park, an indication that the vehicle is not occupied, the engine being on, the vehicle doors and windows being closed” ([0081])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches the condition that seat weight is not detected: each occupancy zone has an occupancy sensor that “may be a seat weight sensor,” and the entry conditions require “an indication that the vehicle is not occupied.” An unoccupied indication from a seat weight sensor is a determination that seat weight is not detected.
and no object is detected in a rear seat of the vehicle,
See at least:
“a rear left side passenger zone 215c having a left rear seat 226c, and a rear right side passenger zone 215d having a right rear seat 226d.” ([0039])
“As another example, each occupancy sensor 216 may additionally or alternatively include one or more of an interior camera, an infrared camera, an interior microphone, and a carbon dioxide sensor.” ([0039])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches rear-seat occupancy zones 215c/215d with occupancy sensors that may include an interior camera or an infrared camera. Gutowski uses these sensors to confirm that no passenger is in the rear seat. The claim recites “no object.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation a passenger, child, or pet in the rear seat is an object, so Gutowski’s rear-seat occupancy check teaches the limitation. To the extent “object” is read more broadly to include inanimate items, it would have been obvious to use Gutowski’s interior camera to confirm that nothing is on the rear seat, because Umenei teaches that UV-C exposure of interior plastics and other materials should be limited ([0039]).
Motivation to Combine Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins before them, to further modify the method of Claim 1 so that the controller determines that the sterilization stability condition is satisfied only when the vehicle is stopped, in park, with windows closed, doors locked, the smart key outside, no seat weight, and nothing detected in the rear seat, as taught by Gutowski. Gutowski teaches a conjunctive list of vehicle-state entry conditions, all of which must be confirmed before and during sanitization, precisely so that sanitization does not occur while the vehicle is moving, open, or occupied ([0081]–[0082]). Umenei stresses that UV-C exposure must be avoided for occupants ([0043], [0053]). A PHOSITA would have adopted Gutowski’s complete set of readily available vehicle signals as Umenei’s stability check to make UV-C sterilization safe and reliable. Each condition performs its known function, and the result is predictable. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (G).
This further modification relies on the teachings of Gutowski identified above for Claim 3. It is made to the method of Claim 1, which is itself the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins. The reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 for combining Umenei with Gutowski and Collins apply equally to Claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Claim 3 is therefore rejected over the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins establishes the method of Claim 3, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Umenei
Umenei teaches:
The method of claim 3,
See at least:
The rejection of Claim 3 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Rationale:
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins teaches the method of Claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 3 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
wherein the determining whether the sterilization stability condition is satisfied further comprises
See at least:
“A dosage calculation is made 835 and one or more UV-C light sources are activated 837. A timer is started 839 and another determination is made 841 if the vehicle is occupied.” ([0045])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the stability determination (step 841) is part of the controlled sterilization sequence, with a further consequence depending on its result.
terminating an operation
See at least:
“If the vehicle is occupied by a driver or passengers, the UV source(s) are disabled 843 and the timer is reset 845.” ([0045])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches terminating an operation: when the stability check fails, “the UV source(s) are disabled 843 and the timer is reset 845.”
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Umenei
Umenei does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
when the sterilization stability condition is not satisfied.
Disclosure by Gutowski
Gutowski teaches:
when the sterilization stability condition is not satisfied.
See at least:
“Thus, even if the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested, the sanitization routine will not be executed unless the entry conditions are met. Thus, the powertrain and HVAC system will not be operated in the vehicle sanitizing mode when the vehicle is occupied, a door or window is open, there is not enough fuel (or battery SOC) to complete the sanitization routine, etc.” ([0082])
“Further, although not explicitly shown, if at any point the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are no longer met, even after the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are confirmed and the vehicle sanitizing mode is activated, method 500 may proceed to 508 to inactivate the vehicle sanitizing mode” ([0082])
“Further, vehicle sanitizing mode feature 708 may abort responsive to the ignition state being changed (e.g., the vehicle is turned off), the engine being turned off, or the vehicle speed increasing above zero, as indicated by I/O signal feature source 732.” ([0126])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches terminating when the stability condition (the conjunctive entry conditions of Claim 3) is not satisfied: the routine “will not be executed unless the entry conditions are met,” the mode is inactivated “if at any point the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions are no longer met,” and the routine aborts when, e.g., the gear leaves park or vehicle speed rises above zero.
Motivation to Combine Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins before them, to terminate the UV-C operation whenever the Claim 3 stability condition, as a whole, is not satisfied. Umenei already disables the UV sources when its stability check fails ([0045]), and Gutowski teaches inactivating the sanitizing mode whenever any of its entry conditions ceases to be met ([0082], [0126]). Once Gutowski’s conditions form the stability condition as explained for Claim 3, applying the same terminate-on-failure response to all of them is the predictable way to keep people from being exposed to UV-C and to stop an operation that can no longer be completed safely. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (G).
This further modification relies on the teachings of Gutowski identified above for Claim 4. It is made to the method of Claim 3, which is itself the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins. The reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3 for combining Umenei with Gutowski and Collins apply equally to Claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference. Claim 4 is therefore rejected over the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Umenei
Umenei teaches:
The method of claim 1,
See at least:
The rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Rationale:
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins teaches the method of Claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
wherein the performing the vehicle interior sterilization using the sterilization apparatus, comprises performing control,
See at least:
“In the event the vehicle is not occupied, the system can be switched to surface disinfection mode 829. The fan speed internal to the device is adjusted 831 and a look-up table is used to determine UV-C dosage 833. The dosage is typically based on sensor feedback in the cabin environment.” ([0045])
“One or more sensors 713 work with the multimode controller 711 to determine spatial dimensions, irradiance and time into the control of the UV sources 701. Given an automotive vehicle often includes an in-built Local Interconnect Network (LIN) infrastructure, the infrastructure can utilize signals directly from automotive sensors 715. These sensors may detect internal light, temperature, touch or proximity sensors.” ([0041])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that performing the vehicle interior sterilization comprises performing control: the controller sets the UV-C dosage from a look-up table “based on sensor feedback in the cabin environment,” and the vehicle sensors that feed controller 711 include temperature sensors.
or the amount of current applied to the light source unit,
See at least:
“One or more UV-C sources 701 utilize drivers 703 which are powered using a power management controller 705.” ([0040])
“As described herein, the UV lamp energy is variable and directed to programmed surfaces. The reflective surface control is programmed for variable intensity, distribution using a delivery mechanism.” ([0026])
Rationale:
Claim 7 recites the reduction in the alternative (“operating time … or the amount of current”). The operating-time alternative is addressed under Gutowski below, and that alternative alone meets the claim. In addition, Umenei teaches the current alternative: its UV-C sources are powered through drivers 703 and the UV lamp energy “is variable.” The energy of an LED source is set by its drive current, so varying the energy through the drivers is controlling the amount of current applied to the light source unit.
by the control unit.
See at least:
“As noted herein, the UV light sources 701, motor 702 and door or shutter 709 are controlled by a multimode auto-configuration controller 711.” ([0040])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that this control is performed by the control unit, controller 711.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Umenei
Umenei does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
in a case where an interior temperature of the vehicle exceeds a first set temperature,
for reducing an operating time of the sterilization apparatus
Disclosure by Gutowski
Gutowski teaches:
in a case where an interior temperature of the vehicle exceeds a first set temperature,
See at least:
“At 514, method 500 includes determining if the cabin temperature is greater than or equal to a first threshold temperature.” ([0096])
“For example, when exposed to temperatures at or above the first threshold temperature, microbes are expected to be killed or deactivated.” ([0096])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches determining whether the interior (cabin) temperature of the vehicle is at or above a first threshold temperature, i.e., a first set temperature, during sanitization. Gutowski teaches that at or above that temperature “microbes are expected to be killed or deactivated.” Gutowski uses a “greater than or equal to” test; the claimed “exceeds” is the same comparison with a trivially different boundary, and no criticality is shown for it.
for reducing an operating time of the sterilization apparatus
See at least:
“In other examples, the first threshold duration may be adjusted based on based on the cabin humidity and/or whether or not the UV lights are activated. For example, as the cabin humidity increases, the first threshold duration may decrease, as higher humidity may increase a rate at which sanitization occurs.” ([0099])
“As another example, the first threshold duration may be longer when UV lights are not activated and shorter when UV lights are activated, as the UV lights may supplement the heat sanitization.” ([0099])
“For example, the first threshold duration may be longer for the deep clean mode and shorter for the quick clean mode. Thus, the deep clean mode may include settings and instructions for maintaining the cabin temperature at a higher temperature and/or for a longer duration than the quick clean mode” ([0100])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches reducing the operating time of the sanitizing operation when conditions in the cabin increase the rate of sanitization. The treatment duration “may decrease” as humidity rises because “higher humidity may increase a rate at which sanitization occurs,” and the duration is “shorter when UV lights are activated, as the UV lights may supplement the heat sanitization.” Gutowski thus teaches that heat and UV irradiation are complementary germicidal agents whose combined effect lets the operating time be shortened. Gutowski also teaches that at or above the first threshold temperature the heat itself kills microbes ([0096]). It follows that when the cabin temperature exceeds that set temperature, part of the germicidal work is already being done by heat, so the UV-C operating time needed to reach the required kill level is lower. Reducing the UV operating time in that case would have been obvious from Gutowski’s explicit teaching that the duration of one agent is shortened when the other is present.
Motivation to Combine Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins before them, to further modify the method of Claim 1 so that, when the cabin temperature exceeds a first set temperature, the controller reduces the operating time of the UV-C sterilization (or, alternatively, the drive current to the UV-C sources). Umenei sets its UV-C dose from cabin sensor feedback, including temperature ([0041], [0045]), and adjusts the sources to “a required dose” to spare interior materials from “any additional UV-C exposure” ([0039]). Gutowski teaches that an elevated cabin temperature is itself germicidal ([0096]) and that the sanitizing duration is shortened when a supplementing condition raises the sanitization rate ([0099]). A PHOSITA would have been motivated to shorten the UV-C time when the cabin is already hot. This avoids delivering more UV-C than needed, saves battery energy (consistent with the SOC management of Claim 1), and limits further heating of the closed cabin by the operating sources, with the predictable result of an adequate but not excessive dose. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) and (G).
This further modification relies on the teachings of Gutowski identified above for Claim 7. It is made to the method of Claim 1, which is itself the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins. The reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 for combining Umenei with Gutowski and Collins apply equally to Claim 7 and are incorporated herein by reference. Claim 7 is therefore rejected over the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Disclosure by Umenei
Umenei teaches:
The method of claim 1,
See at least:
The rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Rationale:
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins teaches the method of Claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
wherein the performing the vehicle interior sterilization using the sterilization apparatus, comprises
See at least:
“A dosage calculation is made 835 and one or more UV-C light sources are activated 837. A timer is started 839 and another determination is made 841 if the vehicle is occupied.” ([0045])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that performing the vehicle interior sterilization comprises activating and controlling the UV-C light sources of the apparatus.
controlling the amount of current applied
See at least:
“One or more UV-C sources 701 utilize drivers 703 which are powered using a power management controller 705.” ([0040])
“As described herein, the UV lamp energy is variable and directed to programmed surfaces. The reflective surface control is programmed for variable intensity, distribution using a delivery mechanism.” ([0026])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches controlling the amount of current applied to its UV-C sources. The sources are driven by drivers 703 under the power management controller, and the UV lamp energy “is variable” with “variable intensity.” The output of an LED is set by its drive current, so varying the source energy through the drivers is controlling the amount of current applied.
to each of the plurality of LEDs that form the light source unit,
See at least:
“the HMI control system 400 for controlling the HMI control panel 401 includes a plurality of UV sources 403 which are driven by one or more UV-C source drivers 405. Those skilled in the art will recognize that the UV light sources 403 may be cold cathode, low pressure Hg or UV-C LED’s.” ([0026])
“In yet another embodiment, the UV-C lighting can be mounted on separate printed circuit boards allowing a first group of UV-C LEDs to be lit for air disinfection and a second groups of UV-C LEDs to be lit for surface disinfection.” ([0033])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the light source unit is formed by a plurality of LEDs (“UV-C LED’s”; a “first group of UV-C LEDs” and “a second groups of UV-C LEDs”), each of which receives drive current from the drivers.
or controlling the number of lighting times of each of the plurality of LEDs,
See at least:
“This system of reflective surface can adjust intensity of the light to touch screen usage rates, but also to programmed patterns for example, scanning vs. continuous vs. intermittent use.” ([0052])
“In yet another embodiment, the UV-C lighting can be mounted on separate printed circuit boards allowing a first group of UV-C LEDs to be lit for air disinfection and a second groups of UV-C LEDs to be lit for surface disinfection.” ([0033])
Rationale:
Umenei also teaches the alternative of controlling the number of lighting times of the LEDs: its light delivery may be programmed for “scanning vs. continuous vs. intermittent use,” and specific LED groups are selectively lit. Intermittent lighting under program control is controlling the number of lighting times. Because the claim recites the two controls in the alternative, either one meets the claim.
by the control unit.
See at least:
“As noted herein, the UV light sources 701, motor 702 and door or shutter 709 are controlled by a multimode auto-configuration controller 711.” ([0040])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that this control is performed by the control unit, controller 711.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Umenei
Umenei does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
from the battery
Disclosure by Gutowski
Gutowski teaches:
from the battery
See at least:
“Energy storage device may include one or more batteries. For example, energy storage device may include one or more traction batteries and/or one or more starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) batteries.” ([0022])
“When included, the UV lights (e.g., the plurality of UV light sources 281) may be activated by supplying electrical power to the UV lights, for example, causing the UV lights to emit light in the UV (e.g., UVC) range.” ([0088])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches that the current is applied from the battery: the vehicle’s energy storage device “may include one or more batteries,” and the UV lights are activated “by supplying electrical power to the UV lights.” Umenei likewise powers its UV sources from “a battery power source” ([0026]). In the combination of Claim 1, the vehicle battery whose SOC is monitored is the source of the LED current.
Motivation to Combine Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins before them, to supply the LED drive current in Umenei’s method from the vehicle battery taught by Gutowski, the same battery whose SOC governs the method of Claim 1. Umenei already contemplates battery power for its UV sources ([0026]), and Gutowski teaches that the vehicle’s traction or SLI battery powers its UV lights ([0022], [0088]). Drawing the current from the on-board vehicle battery is the obvious and predictable power source for a vehicle-installed UV-C apparatus that must operate while the vehicle is parked and the ignition is off, and it is what makes the SOC-based control of Claim 1 meaningful. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
This further modification relies on the teachings of Gutowski identified above for Claim 8. It is made to the method of Claim 1, which is itself the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins. The reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 for combining Umenei with Gutowski and Collins apply equally to Claim 8 and are incorporated herein by reference. Claim 8 is therefore rejected over the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins establishes the method of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Umenei
Umenei teaches:
The method of claim 8,
See at least:
The rejection of Claim 8 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Rationale:
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins teaches the method of Claim 8, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 8 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
wherein the control unit performs control
See at least:
“As noted herein, the UV light sources 701, motor 702 and door or shutter 709 are controlled by a multimode auto-configuration controller 711.” ([0040])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the control unit, controller 711, performs control of the UV-C sources.
for reducing the current applied to each of the LEDs positioned adjacent to the sterilization apparatus
See at least:
“Thus, by locating UV sensors in the farthest reaching areas of the vehicle interior, UV-C intensity is detected and/or sensed allowing the UV-C light sources to be adjusted to a required dose. This spares the plastics and/or other materials used in the vehicle interior environment any additional UV-C exposure.” ([0039])
“Embodiments used in the present invention are effective because spatial dimensions, irradiance and time are factored into the disinfection system configuration.” ([0037])
“the dosage UV-C light is precisely controlled to ensure that the resulting distinction is uniform across the surface of the touchscreen.” ([0029])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches controlling UV-C source output by location so that nearby regions do not receive excess exposure: irradiance and spatial dimensions are factored into the control, the delivered dose is controlled so the distribution is “uniform,” and the sources are adjusted to a “required dose,” which “spares the plastics and/or other materials … any additional UV-C exposure.” Irradiance from a source falls off with distance. Achieving a uniform, required dose therefore means lowering the output (drive current) of the LEDs that serve regions close to the apparatus, which would otherwise be over-exposed. Umenei does not use the words “reduce the current to the adjacent LEDs.” Nevertheless, reducing drive current for LEDs serving near regions is the direct and predictable way for a PHOSITA to implement Umenei’s stated uniform-dose and material-sparing objectives with the current control of Claim 8.
and increasing the current applied to each of the LEDs that emits light of the interior of the vehicle
See at least:
“Thus, by locating UV sensors in the farthest reaching areas of the vehicle interior, UV-C intensity is detected and/or sensed allowing the UV-C light sources to be adjusted to a required dose. This spares the plastics and/or other materials used in the vehicle interior environment any additional UV-C exposure.” ([0039])
“This allows the UV-C light rays 609, 611 to contact various high contact interior surfaces of the vehicle including but not limited to the steering wheel 613, seat 615 and/or center console 617.” ([0034])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches increasing the output directed at the interior regions that are hardest to reach. It places UV sensors “in the farthest reaching areas of the vehicle interior” and adjusts the UV-C sources so that those areas receive the required dose. Its sources emit light onto interior surfaces such as the steering wheel, seats, and console. Because far regions receive less irradiance for the same drive level, raising the drive current of the LEDs that illuminate those far regions is the obvious means of bringing them up to the required dose.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Umenei
Umenei does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
positioned relatively far from the sterilization apparatus.
Disclosure by Gutowski
Gutowski teaches:
positioned relatively far from the sterilization apparatus.
See at least:
“The plurality of UV light sources 281 may be distributed throughout cabin space 214 to direct UV light toward a plurality of interior vehicle surfaces.” ([0050])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches UV LEDs “distributed throughout cabin space 214” to irradiate a plurality of interior surfaces, so the cabin has UV emitters and target regions at differing distances from any one sterilization apparatus, including regions positioned relatively far from it.
Motivation to Combine Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins before them, to further modify the method of Claim 8 so that the controller lowers the drive current of the LEDs serving regions adjacent to the apparatus and raises the drive current of the LEDs illuminating regions relatively far from it. Gutowski teaches UV LEDs distributed through the cabin to reach many surfaces at different distances ([0050]). Umenei teaches controlling UV-C intensity and distribution so the dose is uniform, reaches the farthest areas, and does not overexpose nearby materials ([0029], [0037]–[0039]). A PHOSITA knows that irradiance decreases with distance from the source and would have balanced the per-LED current by distance to achieve Umenei’s uniform required dose with the fewest emitters and least wasted energy. This is the application of a known technique (per-channel LED current control) to a known device to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (optimizing a result-effective variable).
This further modification relies on the teachings of Gutowski identified above for Claim 9. It is made to the method of Claim 8, which is itself the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins. The reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8 for combining Umenei with Gutowski and Collins apply equally to Claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference. Claim 9 is therefore rejected over the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Disclosure by Umenei
Umenei teaches:
The method of claim 1,
See at least:
The rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Rationale:
The combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins teaches the method of Claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
wherein in the determining whether the sterilization precondition for the vehicle is satisfied
See at least:
“The disinfection processes 800 starts 801 where a determination is made if the vehicle is occupied 803. If the vehicle is occupied, then the system is switched 805 solely to an air disinfection mode since exposure to UV-C rays within the vehicle cabin may be unwanted by human occupants.” ([0043])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches the step of determining whether the sterilization precondition (the unoccupied state, step 803) for the vehicle is satisfied.
the control unit determines,
See at least:
“As noted herein, the UV light sources 701, motor 702 and door or shutter 709 are controlled by a multimode auto-configuration controller 711.” ([0040])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the determinations are made by the control unit, controller 711.
when the sterilization precondition is satisfied,
See at least:
“In the event the vehicle is not occupied, the system can be switched to surface disinfection mode 829. The fan speed internal to the device is adjusted 831 and a look-up table is used to determine UV-C dosage 833. The dosage is typically based on sensor feedback in the cabin environment.” ([0045])
Rationale:
Umenei teaches that the subsequent sterilization steps proceed “[i]n the event the vehicle is not occupied,” i.e., when the sterilization precondition is satisfied.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Umenei
Umenei does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
and the user sterilization request signal is received,
whether the user sterilization request signal is received
through an external manipulation unit.
Disclosure by Gutowski
Gutowski teaches:
and the user sterilization request signal is received,
See at least:
“Thus, the control system may commence operation in the vehicle sanitizing mode responsive to the vehicle sanitizing mode entry conditions being met when the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested (e.g., by the vehicle operator or according to other pre-programmed criteria).” ([0083])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches that the determining step includes whether the user sterilization request has been received: the sanitizing mode commences only “when the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested (e.g., by the vehicle operator …).”
whether the user sterilization request signal is received
See at least:
“At 504, method 500 includes determining if the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested. The vehicle sanitizing mode may be requested by a vehicle operator (e.g., a user) via an input device, such as via an HMI (e.g., HMI 196 of FIG. 1), cruise control buttons (e.g., cruise control buttons 134 of FIG. 1), a smartphone app, hard/soft buttons, key fob buttons (e.g., key fob 195 of FIGS. 1 and 2), electronic door keypad buttons, or a pre-programmed combination of such inputs.” ([0076])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches determining whether the user sterilization request signal is received: “At 504, method 500 includes determining if the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested.” In the combination, this request check is made once Umenei’s precondition is satisfied. Checking for the request after confirming the precondition, rather than before, is a selection of the order of two known checks that produces no new or unexpected result. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C).
through an external manipulation unit.
See at least:
“At 504, method 500 includes determining if the vehicle sanitizing mode is requested. The vehicle sanitizing mode may be requested by a vehicle operator (e.g., a user) via an input device, such as via an HMI (e.g., HMI 196 of FIG. 1), cruise control buttons (e.g., cruise control buttons 134 of FIG. 1), a smartphone app, hard/soft buttons, key fob buttons (e.g., key fob 195 of FIGS. 1 and 2), electronic door keypad buttons, or a pre-programmed combination of such inputs.” ([0076])
Rationale:
Gutowski teaches that the request is received through an external manipulation unit: the request is entered “via an input device,” including “a smartphone app,” “key fob buttons,” and “electronic door keypad buttons.” These are user-operated devices outside the sterilization apparatus (and, for the key fob and smartphone, outside the vehicle).
Motivation to Combine Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins before them, to further modify the method of Claim 1 so that, once Umenei’s precondition is satisfied, the controller determines whether the user’s request has been received through an external manipulation unit such as a key fob, smartphone app, or door keypad, as taught by Gutowski. Umenei already contemplates remote control of its UV source through a network remote control 721 and wireless communication ([0042]). Gutowski teaches the specific user devices through which a vehicle occupant requests sanitizing ([0076]). A PHOSITA would have used these familiar devices so that the user can start sterilization after leaving the vehicle, when UV-C exposure of people is avoided, with predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (G).
This further modification relies on the teachings of Gutowski identified above for Claim 10. It is made to the method of Claim 1, which is itself the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins. The reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 for combining Umenei with Gutowski and Collins apply equally to Claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Claim 10 is therefore rejected over the combination of Umenei, Gutowski, and Collins.
Examiner Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Amended claim 1 does not merely rewrite canceled claims 5 and 6 into independent form. It adds the requirement that the second set value be greater than the first set value, recites that the output-limited sterilization mode operates a light source unit at a lower output level than a preset reference output, and relocates the SOC comparison into the sterilization-stability determination. Collins is relied upon only to address those amended limitations. The dependent claims are rejected over the same references as before, with Collins applied only through their dependency on amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
