DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/26/26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive. The remarks argue that Barber and Ufkes only teach real-time sensor feedback systems to adjust emission, rather than using a geometrical irradiance model or [calculations of] predictive and predetermined scheduling. Examiner agrees in principle with the characterization of how Barber and Ufkes work, and the difference between them and the characterization of the invention in the specification. However, the claims are broad enough to read on estimating intensity at the surface without necessarily requiring a calculation using a geometric irradiance model. Claim 1 recites “the target UV dosage being derived from an estimated intensity at the surface based on beam geometry including an emission cone angle and the distance”, but the estimated intensity need only be “based on” geometric primitives, rather than e.g. an estimated intensity obtained from a geometric irradiance model “based on” a beam geometry including an emission cone angle and the distance, for example. The claims may be clarified regarding the predefined control scheme, for example how the emission cone and distance parameters provide different information than general information about distance and an intensity distribution, or how the predefined calculation is performed.
The remarks argue Ufkes only teaches adjusting UV-C for a measured distance between the light source and a rear “dark” side of a surface, and does not suggest being based on the distance between the light source and the surface being treated. However, Ufkes teaches trying to treat all surfaces of an object, not just the dark side surface, (see Ufkes, [0036], describing prior art overexposure to ensure all surfaces are sufficiently irradiated). The claimed surface is broad enough to read on the surface at the “leading edge”. Ufkes explicitly teaches measuring both “the distance from UV-C disinfection apparatus 100, D0, to the target surface, D1, and to the leading surface of the closest object in the room, D2.” ([0037]). In terms of measurement, Ufkes can infer information about the dark side utilizing the distances so “The amount of reflected radiation only needs to be measured from the leading edge of the closest object in the room 44 to measure a kill dose on the dark side of object 44” ([0037]). Thus, all surfaces would be disinfected.
The remarks regarding the 112(a) rejection are persuasive and that grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1, 10-12, 15-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 10-12 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Barber (US 20190117811 A1) in view of Jonas (SE539934C2) (US20190298879A1 will be used an US language equivalent here) and Ufkes (US 20180193502 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barber teaches a system for treating a surface with ultraviolet ("UV") light, comprising:
a UV lighting arrangement (see fig 1) comprising at least one
processing circuitry required for intended operation of system, fig 1: 22, [0040]) configured to control the operation of the UV lighting arrangement by:
(i) determining a predefined treatment schedule (see scheduling, timing, e.g. [0035,47]) based on an expected user behavior (e.g. schedule set by operator)
(ii) computing, for a target microorganism at the surface (see monitored microorganisms, e.g. [0047-48]), an exposure time required to deliver a target UV dosage (see [0048]),
(iii) operating the UV lighting arrangement according to the predefined treatment schedule to provide the target UV dosage during the computed exposure time (see e.g. [0048]).
Barber may fail to explicitly disclose the light source being a field emission based UV light source.
However, Jonas teaches that field emission UV light sources (FEL) are advantageous because they enable long operating life, high energy efficiency, and broad emission spectra without significant tailing (see Jonas, [0012-13]), and discloses use of a light source emitting an entire wavelength spectrum between 250 nm and 320 nm (see continuous emission spectra, [0013]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try using FEL to provide the UV bands required in the prior art, because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try adding additional sources and/or select from the different known effective UV sources (see Barber, [0020]) including the FEL sources having long life, high efficiency, and broad emission spectra, as taught by Jonas.
Barber may fail to explicitly disclose determining the schedule based on a distance between the at least one field-emission UV light source and the surface; and the target UV dosage being derived from an estimated intensity at the surface based on beam geometry including an emission cone angle and the distance.
However, a skilled artisan would have understood to take into account the actual exposure distribution (dose) when setting the schedule, to ensure the target actually receives sufficient energy for inactivation. For example, Ufkes teaches a system to use sensors to compensate for UV intensity diminishment due to an air gap (see Ufkes, [0037]), comprising determining an irradiation schedule (time duration) based on a distance between the UV light source and the surface (see air gap compensation which takes into account distance, [0037]); and the target UV dosage being derived from an estimated intensity at the surface (see [0037]) based on beam geometry (calculation is based on intensity which is defined based on focus, [0028,35]) including the distance (see [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Ufkes in the system of the prior art to more precisely compensate for UV intensity diminishment, in the manner taught by Ufkes. The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the geometry including an emission cone angle, but it is noted that when focusing the beam, the intensity distribution is a function of the geometry including the cone angle and distance. It is noted that inasmuch as the references address mathematical calculations of the same problem, using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. The equations themselves are not a patentable subject matter. Furthermore, Barber explicitly teaches taking into account the distance and angular distribution of light when planning the areas for exposure (see Barber, [0026]), and it would have been obvious to utilize this information when planning the schedule for exposing different parts of a larger object to be disinfected.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Barber, Jonas, and Ufkes teaches the field emission-based UV light source comprises a light converting material arranged to receive electrons and to emit UV light (see Jonas, claim 5).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Barber, Jonas, and Ufkes teaches the light converting material is selected to be at least one of LaPO4:Pr3+, LuPO3:Pr3+, Lu2Si2O7:Pr3+YBO3:Pr3+ or YPO4:Bi3+ (see Jonas, claim 6).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Barber, Jonas, and Ufkes teaches the light converting material is a phosphor material (Jonas, claim 7).
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 – 8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights