DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 5/22/2026. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are pending in the application. Claims 3-6, 17, and 19 have been withdrawn and claims 1, 7-10, 12-16, 18, and 20 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Adkins (US 20210348783) in view of Barron et al. (US 20230001029) (prior art eligible under 102(a)(2) with an effectively filed date of 7/1/21).
Regarding claim 1, Adkins teaches an air sterilization box for treating room air (Fig. 16, device 100 [abstract]), the sterilization box comprising:
an intake chamber configured to receive room air drawn into the sterilization box (Fig. 16, chamber 110 [0089]),
a first plurality of first ultraviolet (UV) light emitting diodes (LEDs) within the intake chamber configured to irradiate air drawn into the intake chamber with UV radiation having a first wavelength (Fig. 16, plurality of LEDs 140 configured to emit UV radiation into chamber 110 within 200-300 nm, adjacent to first opening 114a [0041]),
one or more flow paths configured to receive air from the intake chamber (Fig. 16, flow path 117 receives air from intake chamber 110), and
a second plurality of second UV LEDs within the one or more flow paths configured to irradiate air drawn through the flow paths to produce treated air, wherein the second UV LEDs provide radiation (Fig. 16, second plurality of LEDs 140 configured to emit UV radiation into chamber 110 within 200-300 nm, adjacent to second opening 114b [0041]).
However, Adkins does not teach wherein the first plurality of UV LEDs and are configured to radiate at a first peak wavelength at 405 nm, wherein the second UV LEDs provide radiation having a second peak wavelength at 470 nm, and wherein the first and second UV LEDs comprise a broad spectrum that in sum produces white light.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with the effectiveness of using ultraviolet light for lighting a space, motivating one to turn towards Barron. Barron teaches a combined light disinfection device (abstract) comprising a first light and second light source configured to combine and form a white, disinfecting light [0008] for general illumination and sterilization purposes [0003]. Barron teaches wherein the first light source may have a peak wavelength of 405 nm and the second light source may have a peak wavelength of 470 nm [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second plurality of LED lights as taught by Adkins to emit at a peak wavelength of 405 and 470 nm, respectively, since Barron teaches these wavelengths to provide sterilizing light suitable for both disinfection [0022] and general illumination [0024] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more flow paths are non-linear (Adkins, Fig. 16, flow path 117 is non-linear [0089]).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 7, wherein each of the flow paths are serpentine or spiral along at least a portion of their lengths (Adkins, Fig. 16, flow path 117 is serpentine [0089]).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 8, wherein each of the flow paths are defined by one or more baffles (Adkins, Fig. 16, flow path 117 is serpentine and defined by fins 1670 = baffles [0089]).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 9, wherein each of the flow paths have widths that change over the length of the flow path (Adkins, Fig. 16, flow path 117 changes width over the length due to blinders 1618).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 1, wherein the second UV LEDs are configured to produce the UV radiation capable of sterilizing biological pathogens in the air (Adkins, [0041-0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 1, wherein the sterilization box comprises an interior comprising a reflective coating (Adkins, Fig. 1, chamber 110 coated with reflective material 120).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 1, comprising four flow paths (Adkins, Fig. 16, flow path 117 is defined by fins 1670 into what is understood to be four flow paths, additionally, Fig. 15B shows another embodiment of the device shows flow path 117 is defined by fins 1570 into what is understood to be four flow paths [0089]).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Adkins (US 20210348783) in view of Barron et al. (US 20230001029), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Dassanayake (US 20220118149).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 13, including a reflective coating (Adkins, Fig. 1, 120) for the interior wherein but does not teach wherein the reflective coating is photocatalytically active.
Dassanayake teaches a purification system [abstract] comprising UVC lights (Fig. 1, 44a) for irradiating air within a reaction chamber [0041], wherein the reaction chamber may be coated with titanium dioxide, a photocatalyst, to produce hydroxyl radicals to kill pathogens in the air when exposed to UV light [0042-0043].
Dassanayake and Adkins are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to devices for sterilizing air with ultraviolet light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective chamber walls as taught by Adkins with the titanium dioxide coating as taught by Dassanayake since Dassanayake teaches the titanium dioxide coating to generate hydroxyl radicals and kill pathogens in air when activated by UV light [0043] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 14, wherein the reflective coating comprises Ti02 crystals (Dassanayake, [0042-0043]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Adkins (US 20210348783) in view of Barron et al. (US 20230001029), as applied to claim 1, further in view of McMillan (US 11402073).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 1, including an alternative embodiment configured to connect to a light fixture (Figs. 4 and 11, device 100 is incorporated into an overhead light fixture [Adkins, 0036, 0060-0061]). However, Modified Adkins does not explicitly teach wherein the bottom is configured to connect to an existing light fixture. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how to mechanically couple the device 100 into an already existing light fixture, motivating one to turn towards McMillan.
McMillan teaches a UV light assembly configured to be retrofitted onto an existing light assembly [abstract] wherein the retrofitting assembly (Fig. 1, 100) comprises a frame (102) with a plurality of clips (104) for mounting the bottom of the UV light assembly to the light fixture (Figs. 3A-3B).
McMillan is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to UV light assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sterilizing device of Modified Adkins (Adkins, Fig. 4, 100) with the mounting clips as taught by McMillan since McMillan teaches the clips to allow for the retrofitting of a UV sterilization assembly to an existing light assembly and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adkins (US 20210348783) in view of Barron et al. (US 20230001029), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Engelhard (US 20170080373).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Adkins teaches the sterilization box of claim 1, including an exit port (Adkins, Fig. 16, 1616) but does not teach wherein the exit port further comprises a filter configured to filter the treated air as it exits the sterilization box.
Engelhard teaches an air purification system (Fig. 1, 100 [abstract]) comprising a photocatalytic element 114 adjacent to the outlet 118 of the device wherein the element is a filter coated with a catalyst to decompose ozone in the air stream formed as a byproduct from UV sterilization [0038].
Engelhard and Modified Adkins are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outlet as taught by Modified Adkins to include the coated filter as taught by Englehard since Englehard teaches the filter to decompose ozone in the treated air that was formed during UV sterilization [0038] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 6-7 of the arguments filed 5/22/2026, the Applicant argues that the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight reasoning for the combination of Adkins and Barron, as one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the device of Adkins to emit visible light for general illumination principles with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the disclosure of Adkins contemplates incorporating the air disinfection system into a wall-mounted fixture as exemplified in Figure 11 [0073]. Therefore, modifying the disinfecting system of Adkins to include the wavelengths of 405 nm and 470 nm to create a combined, disinfecting white light as taught by Barron to improve the general illumination capabilities of the disinfecting device does not rely on hindsight reasoning gleaned from the Applicant’s disclosure. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The disclosure Barron teaches the combined white light to provide light suitable both for sterilization and lighting ([0022], [0024]]).
Thus, the rejection is respectfully asserted to be proper and is maintained.
In the arguments presented on page 7 of the arguments filed 5/22/2026, the Applicant argues that Barron does not teach using a 405 nm and 470 nm light together and that because the disclosure teaches wherein the one or more light sources may have a peak or multiple peak wavelengths between 300-500 nm, there would be no motivation to select a specific 405 nm and 470 nm combination of light with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts the number of peak wavelengths disclosed by Barron does not preclude an ordinary artisan from selecting 405 nm and 470 nm because limitations lying within a range disclosed by the prior art have already been found to be obvious (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)) and because Barron teaches wherein one or more of the light sources may emit a peak wavelength at 405 nm and the other may emit at a peak wavelength between 300-500 nm in para [0046]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the two peak wavelengths to generate a combined wavelength capable of inactivating microorganisms and provide lighting to an area as contemplated by Barron [0050].
Thus, the rejection is respectfully asserted to be proper and is maintained.
In the arguments presented on pages 7-8 of the arguments filed 5/22/2026, the Applicant argues that Barron does not teach wherein the two light sources at 405 nm and 470 nm combine to form white light with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that modification of Adkins in view of Barron teaches a combined disclosure comprising a first plurality of LEDs configured to emit within 200-300 nm (Adkins, [0041]), a second plurality of LEDs configured to emit within 200-300 nm (Adkins, [0041]), wherein the first plurality and second plurality of LEDs were modified to include a peak wavelength of 405 nm and 470 nm, respectively, as taught by Barron [0046] since Barron teaches the wavelengths to provide sterilizing light suitable for both disinfection and general illumination ([0022], [0024]), wherein the combined light is a white light [0008]. As noted by the Applicant on page 8 of the remarks, Barron teaches specific combinations of wavelengths that yield white light in para [0008], wherein a disclosed combination includes a first wavelength between 380-420 nm and a second wavelength between 200-230 nm. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the combined disclosure of Adkins and Barron teaches a first plurality of LEDs configured to emit within 200-300 nm (Adkins, [0041]) AND 405 nm (Barron, [0046]) and a second plurality of LEDs configured to emit within 200-300 nm (Adkins, [0041]) AND 470 nm (Barron, [0046]), which is understood to produce a broad spectrum that in sum produces white light (Barron, [0008]).
Thus, the rejection is respectfully asserted to be proper and is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights