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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/13/26 has been entered.
In response to the remarks, it is noted that attaching to “a single Tee of a grid of Tees” is still broad enough to read on a substrate or fixture that attaches to more than one Tee, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Likewise, the language of hooking onto a Tee can comprise hooking over a Tee or hooking into a hole in a Tee.
Specification Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION LIGHTING FIXTURE FOR SUSPENDED CEILING.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11-19, 21-25 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11-19, 21-25 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11-19, 21-25 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a substrate having a minimum dimension less than or equal to 30 mm” but it is unclear if this refers to a minimum of all the dimensions or having a dimension with a minimum dimension. Para [0021], fig 3a, etc of the published application shows examples where the substrate is longer in at least one dimension than 30mm, such as to match a standard ceiling tile. The limitation is read to mean that one of the substrate’s three dimensions has a minimum dimension less than or equal to 30mm. Claims 9, 14 are rejected for similar language.
Claims 4-7, 11-13, 15-19, 21-25 are rejected due to their dependence from claims 1, 9, 14.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over https://web.archive.org/web/20180228152017/http://www.nichia.co.jp/jp/product/uvled.html [hereinafter Nichia].
Regarding claim 1, Nichia teaches a luminaire comprising:
a substrate (see outer chip package for e.g. NVSU233B) having a minimum dimension less than or equal to 30 mm (see 3.5x3.5x1.23mm);
at least one ultraviolet light source (white light emitting portion inside the UVLED chip) mounted on the substrate (see photo of NVSU233B); and
a fixture (see soldering points for the cathode and anode) configured to attach the substrate to a single Tee of a grid of Tees of a suspended ceiling with the at least one ultraviolet light source being exposed to, and directly illuminating, a space below the suspended ceiling.
Nichia may fail to explicitly disclose the fixture being configured to attach the substrate to a single Tee of a grid of Tees of a suspended ceiling with the at least one ultraviolet light source being exposed to, and directly illuminating, a space below the suspended ceiling. However, the limitation of specifies an intended use or field of use, and therefore is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. See MPEP 2114; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Casement et al. (US 20170082252 A1) [hereinafter Casement] in view of Ngai (US 20100284185 A1) and Lynn et al. (US 20150062893 A1) [hereinafter Lynn].
Regarding claim 1, Casement teaches a luminaire comprising:
a substrate (e.g. fig 8a: 10c)
at least one
a fixture (see e.g. 16c, 18c, 20c) configured to attach the substrate to a single Tee (see e.g. 14b) of a grid of Tees of a suspended ceiling (see [0037], fig 17) with the at least one
Casement may fail to explicitly disclose the substrate having a minimum dimension less than or equal to 30 mm.
However, the use of low profile lighting fixtures was well known in the art. For example, Ngai teaches that lighting fixtures were well known to be low profile and fit within standard T bars for grid ceilings, which have walls of height less than 3cm (see 1 1/8 in, Ngai, [0053]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective low profile height for the substrate to enable use in known standard suspended ceilings. Further, it is noted that it has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Casement may fail to explicitly disclose the light source being ultraviolet.
However, the use of ultraviolet light sources was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively field. For example, Lynn teaches a system to use a plurality of light sources in a ceiling mounted light (see Lynn, e.g. [0040]) which comprises both visible and UV light sources (see [0041]) to enable inactivation of microorganisms in a wide range of environments (see [0005-06]). 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 Lynn in the system of the prior art, to enable the ability to provide both UV and visible illumination to provide functionality to inactivate microorganisms in different environments, in the manner taught by Lynn.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn teaches the at least one ultraviolet light source comprises at least one ultraviolet LED (see Lynn, [0079]) or ultraviolet OLED or ultraviolet laser diode, or an array of ultraviolet mini-LEDs or an array of ultraviolet micro-LEDs.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn teaches the ultraviolet LED or LEDs have peak wavelength less than about 380 nm (see Lynn, [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn teaches the at least one ultraviolet light source comprises at least one ultraviolet LED and the at least one ultraviolet LED does not include primary or secondary optics (see e.g. Lynn, fig 8d: 160, fig 16a: 624).
Regarding claim 9, Casement teaches a luminaire comprising:
a substrate (e.g. fig 8a: 10c)
at least one
a fixture (see e.g. 16c, 18c, 20c) configured to attach the luminaire to a Tee (see e.g. 14b) of a grid of Tees of a suspended ceiling (see [0037], fig 17), the fixture including a including a horizontal section (see e.g. portion of housing around 10c) on which the substrate is mounted, and a vertical section (see e.g. vertical portion of housing near 14c) joined to and oriented perpendicular to the horizontal section (see e.g. fig 8), the vertical section having
an electronic driver (required for operation of system, see [0035])
Casement may fail to explicitly disclose a hook via which the fixture is hooked onto the Tee of the grid of Tees of the suspended ceiling.
However, in different embodiments, Casement teaches that hooks were well known to be used to hook a fixture to a Tee in a grid of Tees of suspended ceilings (see e.g. Casement, fig 1: 16a, figs 10a, 12) and that different configurations enable using only a single light or dual lights (compare figs 1, 8, etc with fig 12, [0041]) or without the need for additional fasteners (see e.g. fig 1, [0030]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of a fixture comprising a hook, to enable the ability to hang a single light and/or avoid use of fasteners when the light does not need to be serviced often, in the manner taught by Casement.
Casement may fail to explicitly disclose the substrate having a minimum dimension less than or equal to 30 mm.
However, the use of low profile lighting fixtures was well known in the art. For example, Ngai teaches that lighting fixtures were well known to be low profile and fit within standard T bars for grid ceilings, which have walls of height less than 3cm (see 1 1/8 in, Ngai, [0053]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective low profile height for the substrate to enable use in known standard suspended ceilings. Further, it is noted that it has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Casement may fail to explicitly disclose the light source being ultraviolet.
However, the use of ultraviolet light sources was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively field. For example, Lynn teaches a system to use a plurality of light sources in a ceiling mounted light (see Lynn, e.g. [0040]) which comprises both visible and UV light sources (see [0041]) to enable inactivation of microorganisms in a wide range of environments (see [0005-06]). 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 Lynn in the system of the prior art, to enable the ability to provide both UV and visible illumination to provide functionality to inactivate microorganisms in different environments, in the manner taught by Lynn.
The combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn may fail to explicitly disclose the driver being disposed above the suspended ceiling, and mounted on the vertical section of the fixture.
However, it was well known in the art and Ngai teaches (e.g. Ngai, figs 31-33) that the driver can be placed above or below the ceiling, and It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the position of the light and/or driver as a routine skill in the art, for example to provide a desired position of the light and/or move the part or all of the driver to provide a modular or easily movable construction. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn may fail to explicitly disclose the substrate has the shape of a long plate having a width of 5-30 mm and a length of 50-1300 mm. However, the selection of the size and configuration of the LED light sources would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art to provide illumination for a given application and/or for different ceiling configurations. Although the embodiment does not recite the same structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Alternately, Lynn teaches that the LEDs are placed on a long elongated flat substrate portion between bulbs (see Lynn, fig 16a. e.g. figs 8b,10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to separate the single substrate into multiple substrates, including strips having width greater than 30mm (see one row of 624 going into the page) and a thickness less than about 5mm and length much greater than width, as a routine skill in the art, for example to simplify manufacturing using separate small substructures and/or circuit boards. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn teaches the long plate is arranged parallel with the Tee of the grid of Tees of the suspended ceiling to which the luminaire is attached (see e.g. Casement, fig 8a, Lynn, [0049], Ngai, [0003-04]).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn teaches an electronic driver (required for operation of system, see Casement, [0035) The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the electronic driver secured to the fixture and disposed above the suspended ceiling when the fixture is attached to the Tee. However, it was well known in the art and Ngai teaches (e.g. Ngai, figs 31-33) that the driver can be placed above or below the ceiling, and It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the position of the light and/or driver as a routine skill in the art, for example to provide a desired position of the light and/or move the part or all of the driver to provide a modular or easily movable construction. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn teaches the horizontal section of the installed fixture (see e.g. Casement, fig 8a: 19c) forms a seat for receiving and supporting a peripheral edge of a ceiling tile installed in the suspension ceiling (see [0037]).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn teaches the fixture is configured to attach the luminaire to a single Tee (see Casement, fig 8a: 14c), and the hook of the vertical section is hooked onto the single Tee of the grid of Tees of the suspended ceiling to which the luminaire is attached (see unitary hook in e.g. figs 1, 10a, 12, etc).
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Casement, Ngai, and Lynn, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bailey (US 20170074474 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, and Lynn may fail to explicitly disclose the substrate comprises a printed circuit board providing electrical, mechanical, and thermal connections to the at least one ultraviolet light source mounted on the grid of the suspended ceiling. However, the use of PCBs to provide these connections to LED modules was notoriously well known in the art. For example, Bailey teaches a known effective PCB mounting system providing electrical, mechanical, and thermal connections (see Bailey, e.g. fig 7a, [0092]) to the at least one LED mounted on the grid of the suspended ceiling (see abstract). 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 Bailey in the system of the prior art, in order to enable the use of the known effective PCB structure that provides heat dissipation while providing the electrical, mechanical, and thermal connections required for the intended operation of the system, as taught by Bailey.
Regarding claim 14, Casement teaches a luminaire comprising:
a substrate (e.g. fig 8a: 10c)
a fixture (see e.g. 16c, 18c, 20c) including an LED mount section (see region around e.g. 10c, 19c) on which the [substrate]
wherein the LED mount section of the fixture forms a seat (see e.g. 19c) for receiving and supporting a peripheral edge of a ceiling tile installed in the suspension ceiling (see e.g. [0037]).
Casement may fail to explicitly disclose the light source being ultraviolet.
However, the use of ultraviolet light sources was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively field. For example, Lynn teaches a system to use a plurality of light sources in a ceiling mounted light (see Lynn, e.g. [0040]) which comprises both visible and UV light sources (see [0041]) to enable inactivation of microorganisms in a wide range of environments (see [0005-06]). 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 Lynn in the system of the prior art, to enable the ability to provide both UV and visible illumination to provide functionality to inactivate microorganisms in different environments, in the manner taught by Lynn.
Casement may fail to explicitly disclose the substrate comprises the substrate comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) having a minimum dimension less than or equal to 30 mm.
However, the use of PCBs to provide these connections to LED modules was notoriously well known in the art. For example, Bailey teaches a known effective PCB mounting system providing electrical, mechanical, and thermal connections (see Bailey, e.g. fig 7a, [0092]) to the at least one LED mounted on the grid of the suspended ceiling (see abstract). 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 Bailey in the system of the prior art, in order to enable the use of the known effective PCB structure that provides heat dissipation while providing the electrical, mechanical, and thermal connections required for the intended operation of the system, as taught by Bailey.
The combined teaching of Casement, Lynn, and Bailey may fail to explicitly disclose the PCB having a minimum dimension less than or equal to 30 mm.
However, the use of low profile lighting fixtures was well known in the art. For example, Ngai teaches that lighting fixtures were well known to be low profile and fit within standard T bars for grid ceilings, which have walls of height less than 3cm (see 1 1/8 in, Ngai, [0053]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective low profile height for the substrate and PCB to enable use in known standard suspended ceilings. Further, it is noted that it has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14-19, 21-22 , 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Casement, Ngai, and Lynn, and further in view of May (US 20170227204 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Casement teaches a luminaire comprising:
a substrate (e.g. fig 8a: 10c)
a fixture (see e.g. 16c, 18c, 20c) including an LED mount section (see region around e.g. 10c, 19c) on which the [substrate]
wherein the LED mount section of the fixture forms a seat (see e.g. 19c) for receiving and supporting a peripheral edge of a ceiling tile installed in the suspension ceiling (see e.g. [0037]).
Casement may fail to explicitly disclose the light source being ultraviolet.
However, the use of ultraviolet light sources was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively field. For example, Lynn teaches a system to use a plurality of light sources in a ceiling mounted light (see Lynn, e.g. [0040]) which comprises both visible and UV light sources (see [0041]) to enable inactivation of microorganisms in a wide range of environments (see [0005-06]). 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 Lynn in the system of the prior art, to enable the ability to provide both UV and visible illumination to provide functionality to inactivate microorganisms in different environments, in the manner taught by Lynn.
Casement may fail to explicitly disclose the substrate comprises the substrate comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) having a minimum dimension less than or equal to 30 mm.
However, the use of PCBs was notoriously well known in the art. For example, May teaches forming LEDs on PCBs with heat sinks to dissipate heat away from the high power LEDs (see May, [0007-08]). 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 May in the system of the prior art to enable the intended operation of the system.
The combined teaching of Casement, Lynn, and May may fail to explicitly disclose the PCB having a minimum dimension less than or equal to 30 mm.
However, the use of low profile lighting fixtures was well known in the art. For example, Ngai teaches that lighting fixtures were well known to be low profile and fit within standard T bars for grid ceilings, which have walls of height less than 3cm (see 1 1/8 in, Ngai, [0053]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective low profile height for the substrate and PCB to enable use in known standard suspended ceilings. Further, it is noted that it has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, Lynn, and May teaches the fixture is a thermal bus effective to provide heat dissipation for the ultraviolet LEDs on the PCB disposed on the LED mount section of the fixture (see including heat sink, May, [0102]).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, Lynn, and May teaches the joined connector section and LED mount section of the fixture are oriented at an angle of 45o or greater to one another (see Casement, fig 8a, 90 degrees orientation relative to the vertical section around the Tee and the horizonal section adjoining it; alternately note obviousness of adjusting angled depending on desired light distribution, e.g. figs 2a, 5a, etc).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, Lynn, and May teaches the joined connector section and LED mount section of the fixture are oriented at an angle of 80o or greater to one another (see Casement, fig 8a, 90 degrees orientation relative to the vertical section around the Tee and the horizonal section adjoining it; alternately note obviousness of adjusting angled depending on desired light distribution, e.g. figs 2a, 5a, etc).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, Lynn, and May teaches the connector section of the fixture (see vertical part of Casement, fig 8a near 14c) is shaped to connect with the Tee of the grid of Tees of the suspension ceiling by hooking onto a riser segment of the Tee of the grid of Tees of the suspension ceiling to which the luminaire is attached (see hooked onto the Tee via clip 20c) (alternately note obviousness of using hook shaped connector section, similar to discussion in claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, Lynn, and May may fail to explicitly disclose the connector section is configured to connect with the Tee of the grid of Tees of the suspension ceiling without using any fasteners or adhesive. However, in different embodiments, Casement teaches that hook-shaped configurations without fasteners were well known to be used to hook a fixture to a Tee in a grid of Tees of suspended ceilings (see e.g. Casement, fig 1: 16a, figs 10a, 12) and that different configurations can enable using only a single light or dual lights, without the need for additional fasteners (compare figs 1, 8, etc with fig 12, [0041]; see e.g. fig 1, [0030]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of a fixture comprising a hook shape and without fasteners or adhesive, to enable the ability to hang a single light and/or avoid use of fasteners when the light does not need to be serviced often, in the manner taught by Casement.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, Lynn, and May teaches a luminaire as set forth in claim 14 installed onto a Tee (see Casement, e.g. fig 8a: 14b) of a grid of Tees of a suspension ceiling (see [0037], fig 17); the ultraviolet LEDs of the luminaire emit ultraviolet light effective to perform disinfection (see Lynn, abstract).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, Lynn, and May teaches a luminaire as set forth in claim 14 installed onto a Tee (see Casement, e.g. fig 8a: 14b) of a grid of Tees of a suspension ceiling (see [0037], fig 17), wherein: the ultraviolet LEDs of the luminaire emit ultraviolet light effective to perform disinfection (see Lynn, abstract); the LED mount section of the fixture comprises a horizontal section arranged parallel with a face segment of the Tee the grid of Tees of the suspension ceiling on which the luminaire is installed (see Casement, fig 8a); and the connector section of the fixture comprises a vertical section (see around 14c) and includes a hook (see 20c) configured to hook onto a riser segment of the Tee of the grid of Tees of the suspension ceiling on which the luminaire is installed (see hooked onto the Tee via clip 20c) (alternately note obviousness of using hook shaped connector section, similar to discussion in claim 9 above), the riser segment being oriented perpendicular to the face segment (see fig 8a).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teaching of Casement, Ngai, Lynn, and May teaches the connector section of the fixture is configured to connect with a single Tee (see Casement, fig 8a: 14c) of a grid of Tees of a suspension ceiling (see [0037], fig 17); and the luminaire secured to the Tee of the grid of Tees of the suspension ceiling does not interfere with installation of ceiling tiles in the suspension ceiling (explicitly designed to accommodate ceiling tiles in e.g. ledges 19c; see generally figs 16-17).
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 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