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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/25 has been entered.
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Claim(s) 15-20 is/are withdrawn.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. § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
PNG
media_image1.png
148
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
PNG
media_image2.png
151
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the claims introduce new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for
“(i) determining a predefined treatment schedule based on an expected user behavior and a distance between the at least one field-emission UV light source and the surface,” (emphasis added) and “(ii) computing, for a target microorganism at the surface, an exposure time…” (emphasis added).
The originally filed application recites “The processing circuitry may in some embodiments be adapted to operate of the non-mercury based UV light source according to a predefined schedule, where the predefined schedule for example may be dependent on at least one of a distance to the surface, a target micro-organism, or an expected user behavior.” ([0024] of the published application) and “14. The system according to claim 13, wherein the predefined schedule is dependent on at least one of a distance to the surface, a target micro-organism, or an expected user behavior.” (original claim 14). However, these recited the distance to the surface, a target micro-organism, and an expected user behavior being interchangeable alternatives, rather than required in the configuration described by amended claim 1.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or claims may be amended by deleting the descriptive statement.
Claims 10-12 are rejected due to a dependency on claim 1, respectively.
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_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.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
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 8:00 am – 5:30 pm M-T, and every other Friday.
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, Robert Kim can be reached on (571) 272 – 2293. 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 2881