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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 3/26/2026. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the disinfecting light" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 establishes that the first light and the second light form disinfecting lights configured to initiate inactivation of microorganisms. The recitation of a singular “light” in claim 2 renders claim 2 unclear as to whether the term “the disinfecting light” is referring to the combination of the first and second lights or is referring to just one of the first or second light. To cure this issue, it is suggested the Applicant amend claim 2 to recite “wherein the disinfection lights are configured to initiate inactivation of microorganisms on a surface, in air, and in a liquid.”
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al. (US 20220347329) (eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 8/28/2020) in view of Naito et al. (US 20230248857), and Yu (US 20210338859).
Regarding claim 1, Ramer teaches a light fixture (Fig. 21, luminaire 10) comprising:
a first light source configured to emit a first light comprising a wavelength between 200-400 nanometers (nm) (Fig. 1, first light source 2116B emits between 200-400 nm, [0201]),
a second light source configured to emit a second light comprising a second wavelength ([0201-0203] light source 2116A can emit between 200-250 nm), wherein the second light source is not an LED (Fig. 21, second light source 2116A can be a krypton chloride lamp [0218]); and,
wherein the first light and the second light form disinfecting lights configured to initiate inactivation of microorganisms ([0202-0203]).
Ramer further teaches that a wavelength range of 405-430 nm can be utilized by the light source in conjunction with more intensive UV radiation to inactive microorganisms without sacrificing human safety ([0006], [0045]) but does not teach wherein the first light source (2116B) is configured to emit within 405-430 nm. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to pursue different combinations of wavelengths to yield effective disinfection of a surface without increasing human risk.
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 light source as taught by Ramer to emit a wavelength within 405-430 nm as taught by Ramer because doing so would yield effective disinfection of a surface without increasing human risk when combined with a more intensive wavelength [0006] (such as the 200-250 nm light emitted from the second light source) 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).
Modified Ramer teaches that the light fixture may include white light source to produce a uniform light output from the light fixture [0052] but does not teach wherein a phosphorescent material converts the first light to white light. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how to utilize the light fixture for general light purposes in addition to sterilization, motivating one to turn towards Peterson.
Peterson teaches a disinfecting light fixture with a first light source configured to emit within 405-420 nm ([0063]) wherein a phosphorescent material converts the first light to a white light [0061] such that the light may be used for general/task illumination [0034] in addition to sterilization when combined with a second, more intensive wavelength ([0063]).
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 light source as taught by Modified Ramer with the phosphorescent material as taught by Peterson because Peterson teaches the phosphorescent material to convert light around 405-420 nm to white light [0063] in order to provide a light that both disinfects when provided with a more intensive wavelength [0063] and general task illumination [0034] 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)
Modified Ramer teaches a second light source that emits within the range of 200-250 nm (Ramer, [0201-0203]) but does not teach wherein a filter is only coupled to the second light source and configured to block wavelengths outside of the range of 200-230 nm. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with users being exposed to harmful wavelengths of UV light outside of 200-230 nm, motivating one to turn towards Naito.
Naito teaches an ultraviolet light irradiation device for inactivating microorganisms comprising a light source (Fig.4, 10) that radiates light within 190-235 nm [0011] and an optical light filter (Fig. 4, 6) for preventing the transmission of light below 190 nm and above 235 nanometers [0024]. Naito teaches the optical filter to prevent exposing humans to harmful bands of UV light above 235 nm [0020] and prevent the production of ozone below 190 nm which is also harmful to humans [0190-0120].
Naito is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilizing devices. 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 second light source as taught by Modified Ramer to include the optical filter as taught by Naito since Naito teaches the filter to improve human safety by limiting harmful UV wavelengths [0020] from being emitted and suppression the generation of ozone [0119-0120] and this involves the combination of elements (the second light source of Ramer with the optical filter of Naito) to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Modified Ramer teaches wherein the light sources are separate (Ramer, Fig. 21, first light source 2116B is separate from second light source 2116A, wherein second light source 2116A emits short wave UV light [0201-0203]) but does not teach a UV light blocking divider that separates the first light source and the second light source preventing degradation, by the second light, of the first light source, wherein the UV light blocking divider protects the first light source and the phosphorescent material. One would be motivated to seek methods to extend the lifespan of the light sources, motivating one to turn towards Yu.
Yu teaches a UV sterilization device [abstract] comprising a light emitting diode module (Fig. 4, 480) with a plurality of UV light emitting diode (482) configured to emit UV light, wherein the module includes a separator (488) configured to block and reflect UV rays emitted by the diodes from damaging infrared light emitting diodes (484) and other electrical components within the module [0062].
Yu is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilizing devices. 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 light fixture as taught by Modified Ramer with the separator as taught by Yu between the two light sources to prevent the second light source from degrading the first light source with its shortwave UV light and this involves the combination of elements (the separator of Yu and the light sources of Ramer) to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner points to MPEP 2115 which states "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." Therefore, claim 2 will not be given patentable weight since it merely recites the materials the apparatus of claim 1 is acting upon. For compact prosecution purposes, Modified Ramer teaches light fixture of claim 1, wherein the disinfecting light is configured to initiate inactivation of microorganisms on a surface, in air (Ramer, [0044])
Regarding claim 3, Modified Ramer teaches the light fixture of claim 1, wherein the first light source comprises at least one LED (Ramer, first light source 2116B can be an LED, [0218)
Regarding claim 4, Modified Ramer teaches the light fixture of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the light fixture comprises a lens or aperture coupled to the second light source configured to create a cutoff angle of the second light. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with controlling the direction of the emitted light, motivating one to turn towards Naito.
Naito further teaches an optical lens (Fig. 14, 11) configured to reduce the angular divergence of ultraviolet light emitted by an excimer light source and control the direction of the light [0127-0128].
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 second light source as taught by Modified Ramer with the optical lens as taught by Naito because Naito teaches the optical lens to reduce the angular divergence of ultraviolet light emitted by an excimer light source and control the direction of the light [0127-0128] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Modified Ramer does not teach wherein the cutoff angle prevents eye exposure to the second light. However, the Examiner points to MPEP 2114 (I) which states “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus.” The Examiner respectfully asserts while Modified Ramer does not explicitly teach a cutoff angle to prevent eye exposure to the second light, the optical lens as taught by Naito [0127-0128] performs as a lens to control the distribution of light and therefore possess the characteristics required to deflect light emitting from the second light source such that an angle of deflection prevents eye exposure to the second light. Accordingly, all limitations as recited in claim 4 are taught by Modified Ramer.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Ramer teaches the light fixture of claim 1, wherein the first light and the second light combine to form a white light (Ramer teaches the combination of light emitted from first light source 2116B and second light source 2116A [0200-0203], Peterson teaches the first light source to be coated with a phosphorescent material that converts 405-420 nm light to white light [0063], therefore the combined output of the first and second light would be white).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al. (US 20220347329 A1) in view of Naito et al. (US 20230248857), and Yu (US 20210338859), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wendt (US 20230277702).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Ramer teaches the light fixture of claim 1 including an embodiment wherein the light fixture can comprise a plurality of different light sources including three or more (Ramer, [0055]) but does not explicitly teach a third light source configured to emit a third light comprising a wavelength from 250-290 nm. One having ordinary skill in the art would seek configurations for increasing the sterilization efficacy of the combined disinfecting light of Ramer’s first light source (Fig. 21, 2116B) and second light source (Fig. 21, 2116A), motivating one to turn towards Wendt.
Wendt teaches a lighting system for disinfection [abstract] comprising a light unit with a plurality of LEDs wherein one light is configured to emit a wavelength of light at 405 nm and the other is configured to emit UV-C light for disinfection wherein the UV-C light has a wavelength of 200-280 nm [0057, 0093].
Wendt and Modified Ramer are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to lighting devices for sterilization. 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 light fixture as taught by Modified Ramer to include the LED configured to emit UV-C light as taught by Wendt to provide additional sterilization to the target area because Wendt teaches the UV-C light emitted by the LED to be between 200-280 nm which is most effective to kill pathogens [0093] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Ramer teaches the light fixture of claim 1 including the second light source (Ramer, Fig. 21, 2116A) but does not teach wherein the second light source emits the second light for a dose of about 250 J/m2.
Wendt further teaches wherein the UV-C LEDs are configured to emit a UV dosage that varies with the materials present in a room and efficacy required for killing viruses and teaches a radiation from 200-1000 J/m2 is preferred. Thus, Wendt recognizes the dosage of UV light to be a result effective variable.
Since this parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result), the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). 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 emits the second light from the second light source for a dose of about 250 J/m2 as exemplified by Wendt to effectively disinfect pathogens within a room.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al. (US 20220347329) in view of Naito et al. (US 20230248857), Yu (US 20210338859), and Wendt (US 20230277702), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Farren (US 20180207303).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Ramer teaches using a plurality of light sources to emit UV at light wavelengths of 405-420 nm (Ramer, [0201]) and 200-230 nm (Ramer, [0201-0203]) for an exposure time (Ramer, [0040]). Generally, ozone is generated by irradiating air steams with UV light at a wavelength of around 185 nm (Farren, [0011]). Therefore, the wavelengths used by the prior art--which all include an exposure time-- ensure that ozone production is minimized, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, since all light sources used by Modified Ramer can be used in a wavelength of above 185 nm where ozone production is minimized.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Ramer teaches the light fixture of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light sources emits UV light at wavelengths of 405-420 nm (Ramer, [0201]) and 200-230 nm (Ramer, [0201-0203]) for an exposure time (Ramer, [0040]). These wavelengths are greater than 185 nm, which is the wavelength generally required to generate ozone (Farren, [0011]). Therefore, the exposure time as taught by Modified Ramer is understood to generate ozone at the claimed threshold of at least 0.001 parts per million, which is essentially a negligible concentration of ozone.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 5 of the amendment, filed 3/26/2026, the Applicant argues that Peterson teaches away from the use of Far-UVC sources as the disclosure of Peterson is drawn to the safe disinfection of a space using visible light as contrasted with the far-UVC excimer lamp as taught by Edquist with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Ramer et al. (US 20220347329). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 6 of the amendment, filed 3/26/2026, the Applicant argues that Edquist does not teach a filter that is only coupled to the second light source and blocks wavelengths outside 200-230 nm, as the cover and reflectors taught by Edquist are not equipped for spectral filtering of UV wavelengths with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Ramer et al. (US 20220347329). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 6 of the amendment, filed 3/26/2026, the Applicant argues that Naito does not teach a filter that is only coupled to a second light source and blocks wavelengths outside 200-230 nm with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Ramer and Naito. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 6-7 of the amendment, filed 3/26/2026, the Applicant argues that Yu does not teach a divider that prevents degradation of a phosphorescent material as the disclosure of Yu is silent with regards to phosphor coated light sources with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully points to MPEP 2114 (II) which states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In this case, while Yu is silent to the protection of phosphorescent materials, Yu’s separator contains the structure functionally capable of protecting a phosphor coated light source. However, the rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Ramer in view of Yu. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 7 of the amendment, filed 3/26/2026, the Applicant argues that no motivation has been articulated to combine the disclosure of Peterson with Edquist and that the previously presented combination relies on hindsight reconstruction with the Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been considered but is now moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the arguments presented on page 7 of the amendment, filed 3/26/2026, the Applicant argues that the transmission reflector as taught by Modified Peterson would not be capable of creating a cutoff angel that prevents eye exposure to the second light with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Ramer and Naito. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate 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