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 .
Preliminary amendments are acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 6-14, 16, 17, 25, and 26 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 17 recite the phrase "preferably" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (US 2023/0201395).
With regards to claim 1, Martin et al. teaches a sanitation system capable of the intended use of sanitizing an object (abstract; fig 8B) comprising a support surface (floor of cabinet) (having a target location arranged to receive the object to be sterilized (624); an illumination module (modules 632, 644, 648) to radiate the target with sanitizing electromagnetic radiation; a dosimeter module (dose sensor) comprising a first dosimeter arranged to measure a dose of SER emitted by the illumination module and received by the dosimeter (taught function of the dosimeter); the system compares the real time dose to the required sanitization specification (this is taken to be a database indicating a required dose); a control module in communication with the illumination module, the database, and the dosimeter module, the control module receiving from the dosimeter a level of measured dose , and further arranged to control based on the level of measured dose, the illumination module such that the required dose is achieved; the control of the illumination module comprises comparing the level of measured dose with an expected dose to reach the first dosimeter upon running the illumination module for a predetermined amount of time at a predetermined power setting, and further comprises adapting, based on a comparison of the measured dose and the expected dose, one of the power setting of the illumination module and/or a duration that the illumination module emits the SER (abstract; para [0125]-[0126]); the illumination module is a LED based illumination module (para [0119], [0114]).
With regards to claim 16, Martin teaches wherein the control module is arranged to perform the comparison of the measured dose and the expected dose and to perform the adjustment of the power setting of the illumination module or the duration of UVC radiation, during the sanitation of the object in a repeating feedback loop arrangement (para [0125]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 2023/0201395).
With regards to claim 2, Martin et al. teaches various LED fixtures but does not specify that they are arrays. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have duplicated the LEDs as desired in order to achieve the desired amount of UV light. The LEDs are in some type of array. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have chosen between the finite options of connecting them in series or parallel to achieve predictable results.
With regards to claim 14, Martin teaches comparing real time dosage received to the desired dosage (see above). Martin also teaches that the lights are turned off after the sterilization is completed (for example fig 9). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to turn the UV lights off after the desired dosage is received in order to ensure sterilization without wasting energy.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 2023/0201395) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Ma et al. (WO 2021227141).
With regards to claim 6, Martin et al. does not teach a defect monitoring system as claimed. Ma et al. teaches monitoring changes in voltage or current of a UV light, comparing that to an expected voltage or current, and then issuing an abnormality signal that the UV light is defective (see example 2). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a defect monitoring system as taught by Ma in order to detect that the UV light is not working properly and thus ensure proper sterilization treatment is achieved.
The combination results in wherein the system further comprises as defect monitoring module in communication with the illumination module and the control module, the defect monitoring module being arranged to detect a defect in one of the light elements in the array and to communicate a detected defect to the control module.
With regards to claim 12, Martin teaches that the lights are LEDs. Martin et al. does not teach a defect monitoring system as claimed. Ma et al. teaches monitoring changes in voltage or current of a UV light, comparing that to an expected voltage or current, and then issuing an abnormality signal that the UV light is defective (see example 2). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a defect monitoring system as taught by Ma in order to detect that the UV light is not working properly and thus ensure proper sterilization treatment is achieved.
The combination results in wherein the system further comprises as defect monitoring module in communication with the illumination module and the control module, the defect monitoring module being arranged to detect a defect in one of the light elements in the array and to communicate a detected defect to the control module.
Ma teaches using a parameter range and sending the abnormal signal when the parameter is outside the range. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have set the range as desired based on what variation is acceptable to them before an abnormality is signaled.
Claim(s) 7-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 2023/0201395) and Ma et al. (WO 2021227141) as applied to claims 6 and 12 above and further in view of Tom et al. (US 2007/0023710).
With regards to claim 7, Ma et al. teaches sending an abnormality alert but does not change the control of the illumination module based on the detected defect. Tom et al. teaches continuously monitoring the operational status of the UV sources and if their output is not sufficient such as for advanced age of the light source compensating with extended exposure time (para [0017]; fig 4). Tom et al. also teaches adjusting intensity level as well if output is too low (defective output)(para [0024], fig 4). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have adjusted the illumination module (either longer exposure time or increasing intensity) in order to adjust for defects in the process and achieve the desired sterilization dosage.
With regards to claim 8, the combination results in adjusting one of the power setting or duration including the defective lighting element.
With regards to claim 9, Tom et al. teaches stopping the treatment (step 408) if the intensity measured is significantly too low due to significant defect or failure (step 416; para [0030]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have deactivated the illumination module if the defect is too great in order to prevent continuing ineffective treatments.
With regards to claim 10, Ma teaches that the defect detected can be due to working too long (age problem) (second to last paragraph of example 2).
With regards to claim 11, the combination above with Ma results in wherein the defect monitoring module is arranged to measure the voltage over the array of light elements and to compare the measured voltage with an expected voltage.
With regards to claim 13, Ma et al. teaches sending an abnormality alert but does not change the control of the illumination module based on the detected defect. Tom et al. teaches continuously monitoring the operational status of the UV sources and if their output is not sufficient such as for advanced age of the light source compensating with extended exposure time (para [0017]; fig 4). Tom et al. also teaches adjusting intensity level as well if output is too low (defective output)(para [0024], fig 4). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have adjusted the illumination module (either longer exposure time or increasing intensity) in order to adjust for defects in the process and achieve the desired sterilization dosage.
The combination results in wherein the system further comprises as defect monitoring module in communication with the illumination module and the control module, the defect monitoring module being arranged to detect a defect in one of the light elements in the array and to communicate a detected defect to the control module.
The combination also results in wherein the defect monitoring module communicates a short-circuit defect to the control module when the measured voltage is lower than the expected voltage by at least one time the forward voltage of the LED (sends a signal that the voltage is too low), and wherein the defect monitoring module communicates an ageing or temperature defect to the control module when the measured voltage is higher than the expected voltage by at least one time the forward voltage of the LED (sends a signal that the voltage is too high). That the too high or too low signal is called a short circuit signal or an ageing signal does not change the signal being sent.
Claim(s) 17, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 2023/0201395) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and further in view of Trapani (US 2012/0282135).
With regards to claim 17, Martin is silent as to how often the dose sensor readings are taken and compared. Trapani teaches a UV sterilization system that uses dose sensors to compare to a target does (abstract; see whole document). Trapani teaches varying how often the sensors are polled and compared anywhere from a few milliseconds to several hours depending on how accurate (changes in light over time) versus probability sensors transmit over each other (para [0031]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have varied the amount of time the senor is polled and compared in order to account for changes in light over time as accurately as desired balanced with communication traffic and energy use.
With regards to claim 25, Trapani teaches using multiple UV dose sensors in different locations to ensure that the desired UV sterilization dose is received by all areas of the treatment area (para [0025]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used multiple dose sensors in order to achieve that all the target area receives the required dosage for sterilization.
The combination results in herein the dosimeter module comprises a further, i.e. second, dosimeter, wherein the second dosimeter is provided at a physically distinct location from the first dosimeter, wherein the second dosimeter is arranged to measure a dose of SER emitted by the illumination module and received by the second dosimeter (further referred to as the "second measured dose"), wherein the control module further is in communication with the second dosimeter, wherein the control module is arranged to receive from the second dosimeters the level of the second measured dose, and wherein the control module is arranged to control, based on the level of the first and second measured dose, the illumination module such that the required dose reaches the target location.
With regards to claim 26, the combination above results in the control as claimed. Trapani continues until all sensors receive the desired dose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights