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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pgs. 8-12, that: In rejecting Claim 4, the Office Action relies on FIGS. 11 and 12 of HUANG. However, the Office fails to provide the clear articulation of the reasons why or how HUANG discloses the claimed features including "wherein an uppermost point of the concave reflective surface ... is located between a center of the major diameter of the concave reflective surface and a reference point of the concave reflective surface located above the light emitting module." There is no description in HUANG, which corresponds to the above-captioned features of the amended Claim 1.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pgs. 8-12, that: In addition, while the Office appears to modify the reflector 113 of YUN in light of the reflector 2 of HUANG, we do not agree with the Examiner's rejections because the proposed combination of Yun and Huang is improper as discussed below. …
YUN is directed to an indirect lighting system where the case 110 of the LED lighting apparatus 100 is mounted on the ceiling 30. In light of YUN's description, the reflector 113 of YUN is designed to diffuse light by bouncing it off an internal ceiling. See following description of YUN. …
In contrast, Huang is directed to a direct lighting system. Huang describes the lamp 11 including several strip-shaped reflective bowls 4 located obliquely above the blackboard 3, lenses provided on the side of the strip-shaped reflective bowls 4 close to the blackboard, and a PCB board 5 arranged parallel to the blackboard 3, and several LED light sources are provided on the PCB board 5 that correspond one-to-one to the reflective concave surfaces 2 of the special lenses. See para. [0052] of Huang. In Huang, strip-shaped reflective bowl 4 is designed to aim the light from the PCB board 5 without the back light, which corresponds to the direct lighting system. See para. [0023] of Huang as reproduced below with emphasis added. In addition, FIGS. 8 and 11, which show the lamp 11 designed to aim light from the fixture directly onto the blackboard, are reproduced below. …
The two references teach fundamentally different and incompatible lighting systems, and thus combining them would change the principle of the operations of YUN and HUANG. If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959).
In response to item(s) 3 above, the examiner disagrees. The examiner is giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. HUANG does not disclose a “lamp 11”. Both YUN (KR 101939355 B1) and HUANG et al. (CN 110242899 A) discloses indirect lighting via a light source that irradiates a reflector which then reflects light to indirectly irradiate a downstream target/area. Both YUN and HUANG indirectly send light from a source to a reflector and then to a target and do not directly send light from a source to a target.
In YUN, light 120/122/123 irradiates reflector 113 which reflects light to a target/floor underneath the reflector. In HUANG, light 5 irradiates reflector 4 which reflects light to target 3. Yun’s reflector (113) could be replaced with HUANG’s reflector (4) for indirect lighting of Yun’s target/floor.
5. In response to item(s) 2 above, the examiner disagrees. The examiner is giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. Since HUANG’s reflector (4) could be substituted for YUN’s reflector (113), and in doing so, HUANG’s reflector could then be mounted in YUN’s reflector’s position, then the claimed elements of claim 1 of “wherein an uppermost point of the concave reflective surface (HUANG 4) tilted with respect to the horizontal surface (YUN’s floor target) is located between a center of the major diameter of the concave reflective surface (4) and a reference point of the concave reflective surface located above the light emitting module (5)”. Also, note that HUANG has positioning mechanisms (figs. 11-12, 9, 9.1 - 9.6), for aiming light from reflector (4) at a target (3).
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over YUN (KR 101939355 B1) in view of HUANG et al. (CN 110242899 A).
Regarding claim 1, YUN discloses a sterilization device (abstract) (figs. 1, and 3-8). comprising:
a light emitting module (120, 122, 123) configured to emit light; and
a support (fig. 4; 119) extending along a horizontal direction and configured to support the light emitting module (120, 122, 123); and
a reflector (113) configured to reflect the light emitted from the light emitting module, and including an inner edge (fig. 4; of 113 near 118) positioned above the support (119) and an outer edge (of 113) extending laterally beyond a side surface of the support (119),
wherein the light emitting module (123) comprises a light emitting diode configured to emit sterilizing light (123) (abstract),
wherein the reflector (113) comprises a concave reflective surface (113) configured to reflect the light emitted from the light emitting module towards a horizontal surface below (fig. 7; not labelled, room floor below 100/ ceiling 30) the light emitting module, and
wherein the concave reflective surface (113) has a major diameter along a major axis (fig. 1, longitudinal axis of 113) and
wherein the outer edge of the reflector (113) is disposed at a
(figs. 1 and 3-8; concave reflector 113, LED module 120 with illumination lighting LEDs 122 and sterilizing LEDs 123 emitting sterilizing light; ceiling 30)
(abstract)
(translation, pgs. 2-6 and 15-18)
(pg. 5; Note reflector 110/113 can be various shapes).
But YUN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the concave reflective surface has a major diameter along a major axis and wherein a radius of curvature near one end of the major diameter is smaller than a radius of curvature near the other end of the major diameter, and wherein the outer edge of the reflector is disposed at a greater height from a surface of the support than the inner edge of the reflector. and
wherein an uppermost point of the concave reflective surface tilted with respect to the horizontal surface is located between a center of the major diameter of the concave reflective surface and a reference point of the concave reflective surface located above the light emitting module.
HUANG, however, discloses
a light emitting module (of 5) (fig. 8, PCB board 5 supports an LED light strip) configured to emit light; and
a support (fig. 8; PCB 5 supporting LED light strip) extending along a direction (laterally relative to reflector 2) and configured to support the light emitting module (light strip on 5); and
a reflector (2) configured to reflect the light emitted from the light emitting module,
wherein the reflector (2) comprises a concave reflective surface (2) configured to reflect the light emitted from the light emitting module (of 5) towards a horizontal surface (3) below the light emitting module, and
wherein the concave reflective surface (2) has a major diameter along a major axis (in figs. 1-10, longitudinal axis of 2) and wherein a radius of curvature near one end of the major diameter is smaller (figs. 1-10; smaller bottom curvature section of 2) than a radius of curvature near the other end (figs. 1-10; wider top curvature section of 2) of the major diameter
wherein the outer edge of the reflector (fig. 8; 2 furthest from 5) is disposed at a greater height from a surface of the support (PCB 5) than the inner edge of the reflector (2 closest to PCB 5) (fig. 8, reflector 2 tilts closer to PCB 5 which supports an LED light strip) (translation, pgs. 7-9) and
wherein an uppermost point fig. 8; top of 2) (figs. 11-12, depending upon adjustment of 10’s position via 9, see pgs. 7-8) of the concave reflective surface (2) tilted with respect to the horizontal surface (3) is located between a center of the major diameter of the concave reflective surface and a reference point of the concave reflective surface located above the light emitting module (of 5)
(figs. 11-12, vertical position adjustment mechanism 9, with 9.5 and 9.6 which connects to hinged plate 9.6, allows the lamp 10 to be tilted relative to the blackboard 3 and floor)
(pgs. 7-8; Note all-directional adjusting the position of the lamp 10);
(figs. 1-10, reflector 2, LED light source on PCB 5, target surface 3)
(fig.8, tilted concave reflector 4 with reflective surface 2 above, LED light source of 5, and target surface 3)
(figs. 11-12, vertical position adjustment mechanism 9, with 9.5 and 9.6 which connects to hinged plate 9.6, allows the lamp 10 to be tilted relative to the blackboard 3 and floor)
(translation, pgs. 7-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of YUN, with the claimed reflector shape proportions and distancing/tilt, as taught by HUANG, to use as a substitution of one known concave reflector for another to obtain predictable light collection, reflection and aiming results.
Regarding claim 16, YUN discloses a sterilization device (abstract) (figs. 1 and 3-8) comprising:
four light emitting modules (120’s);
a support (fig. 4; 119) extending along a horizontal direction and configured to support the four light emitting module (120, 122, 123); and
configured to reflect light emitted from a corresponding one of the four light emitting modules (120), and including an inner edge (fig. 4; of 113 near 118) positioned above the support (119) and an outer edge (of 113) extending laterally beyond a side surface of the support (119),
wherein each of the four light emitting modules (120) comprises a light emitting diode configured to emit sterilizing light (123) (abstract),
wherein each of the reflectors (113) comprises a concave reflective surface (113) configured to reflect light emitted from a corresponding one of the four light emitting modules toward a horizontal surface below the four light emitting modules (120) (fig. 7; not labelled, room floor below 100/ ceiling 30), and
wherein the four light emitting modules (120) and the configured to illuminate the horizontal surface including a region of the horizontal surface directly below the four light emitting modules (120) (fig. 7; not labelled, room floor below 100/ ceiling 30) and
wherein the outer edge of each of the
(figs. 1 and 3-8; concave reflector 113, LED module 120 with illumination lighting LEDs 122 and sterilizing LEDs 123 emitting sterilizing light; ceiling 30)
(abstract)
(translation, pgs. 2-6 and 15-18)
(pg. 5; Note reflector 110/113 can be various shapes).
But YUN fails to explicitly disclose four reflectors. and wherein the outer edge of each of the four reflectors Is disposed at a greater height from a surface of the support than the inner edge of each of the four reflectors and
wherein an uppermost point of the concave reflective surface tilted with respect to the horizontal surface is located between a center of a major diameter of the concave reflective surface and a reference point of the concave reflective surface located above a corresponding one of the four light emitting modules.
HUANG, however, discloses
four light emitting modules (figs. 9-10; 5 per 2); and
a support (fig. 8; PCB 5 supporting LED light strip) extending along a direction (laterally relative to reflector 2) and configured to support the light emitting module (light strip on 5); and
four reflectors (figs. 9-10; 2’s), each reflector (2) configured to reflect light emitted from a corresponding one of the four light emitting modules (of 5),
wherein each of the four reflectors (2) comprises a concave reflective surface (2) configured to reflect light emitted from a corresponding one of the light emitting modules toward a horizontal surface (fig. 8; 3 and/or floor) below the light emitting modules (of 5), and
wherein the four light emitting modules (of 5) and the four reflectors (2) configured to illuminate the horizontal surface including a region of the horizontal surface directly below the light emitting modules (2) (fig. 8; 3 and/or floor) and
wherein the outer edge of the four reflectors (fig. 8; 2 furthest from 5) is disposed at a greater height from a surface of the support (PCB 5) than the inner edge of the four reflectors (2 closest to PCB 5) (fig. 8, reflector 2 tilts closer to PCB 5 which supports an LED light strip) (translation, pgs. 7-9) and
wherein an uppermost point (fig. 8; top of 2) (figs. 11-12, depending upon adjustment of 10’s position via 9, see pgs. 7-8) of the concave reflective surface (2) tilted with respect to the horizontal surface (3) is located between a center of a major diameter of the concave reflective surface and a reference point of the concave reflective surface located above a corresponding one of the four light emitting modules (of 5)
(figs. 11-12, vertical position adjustment mechanism 9, with 9.5 and 9.6 which connects to hinged plate 9.6, allows the lamp 10 to be tilted relative to the blackboard 3 and floor)
(pgs. 7-8; Note all-directional adjusting the position of the lamp 10);
(figs. 1-10, reflectors 2, LED light source on PCB 5, target surface 3)
(fig.8, tilted concave reflector 4 with reflective surface 2 above, LED light source of 5, and target surface 3)
(figs. 11-12, vertical position adjustment mechanism 9, with 9.5 and 9.6 which connects to hinged plate 9.6, allows the lamp 10 to be tilted relative to the blackboard 3 and floor)
(translation, pgs. 7-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of YUN, with four reflectors and the claimed reflector distancing/tilt, as taught by HUANG, to use as a substitution of one known concave reflector configuration (i.e. with four or more reflectors) for another to obtain predictable light collection, reflection and aiming results.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 2, HUANG discloses wherein the concave reflective surface (2) is disposed above the light emitting module (of 5) such that the major diameter ; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 3, HUANG discloses wherein a major axis direction of the concave reflective surface (fig. 8; 2) is tilted with respect to the horizontal surface (3 and/or floor under 3) such that the one end of the major diameter of the concave reflective surface is closer to the horizontal surface (3 and/or floor under 3) than the other end of the major diameter of the concave reflective surface (figs. 11-12, vertical position adjustment mechanism 9, with 9.5 and 9.6 which connects to hinged plate 9.6, allows the lamp 10 to be tilted relative to the blackboard 3 and floor); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 5, HUANG discloses wherein the concave reflective surface (figs. 1-10; 2) has a minor diameter along a minor axis (across 2) orthogonal to the major axis (longitudinal axis of 2), the minor diameter being parallel to the horizontal surface (see fig. 8; of 3 and/or floor under 3) (figs. 11-12, vertical position adjustment mechanism 9, with 9.5 and 9.6 which connects to hinged plate 9.6, allows the lamp 10 to be tilted relative to the blackboard 3 and floor); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Regarding claim 6, YUN discloses that the concave reflective surface (113) comprises an inner reflective surface configured to reflect the light emitted from the light emitting module (120) “towards” a “rectangular area” (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least) on the horizontal surface (fig. 7; not labelled, room floor below 100/ ceiling 30)
(fig. 7; note, can be any rectangular area contained inside reflected lights area on target surface).
Regarding claim 7, YUN discloses that the rectangular area is square (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least).
(fig. 7; note, can be any rectangular/square area contained inside reflected lights area on target surface).
Regarding claim 8, YUN discloses that a light beam (multitude of light rays/beams are reflected from 113 to various directions to various positions in space) reflected from “a reference point” of the concave reflective surface (113) located directly above the light emitting module (120) is directed to a center of the “rectangular area” (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least)
(fig. 7; note, can be any rectangular area contained inside reflected lights area on target surface).
Regarding claim 9, YUN discloses that a light beam (multitude of light rays/beams are reflected from 113 to various directions to various positions in space) reflected from an uppermost point of the concave reflective surface (of 113) is delivered to a region between (112 and/or on floor) the center of the “rectangular area” (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least) and a “vertical projection point” of the light emitting module (120) on the rectangular area
(fig. 7; note, can be any rectangular area contained inside reflected lights area on target surface).
Regarding claim 10, YUN discloses a light beam reflected from an edge of the inner reflective surface (113) that is closest to the one end of the that is farthest from the light emitting module (120) among vertices of the rectangular area (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least); and
a light beam reflected from an edge of the inner reflective surface (113) closest to the other end of the inner reflective surface is delivered to a vertex of the rectangular area (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least) closest to the light emitting module (120) among the vertices of the rectangular area (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least) .
But YUN fails to disclose reflective surface has a shape with a major diameter.
HUANG, however, discloses a light (100 with LED light (of 5) with reflector (2) with a major diameter (see figs. 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of YUN, with the claimed reflector shape proportions/ a reflector having a shape having a major diameter, as taught by HUANG, to use as a substitution of one known concave reflector for another to obtain predictable light collection, reflection and aiming results.
Regarding claim 12, YUN discloses that a maximum illuminance on the horizontal surface (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least) illuminated with the sterilizing light
(pg. 5; Note reflector 110/113 can be various shapes).
Regarding claim 12, YUN discloses a concave reflector (2) (pg. 5; Note reflector 110/113 can be various shapes) and all the limitations and component parts as expressly recited in the claim, but does not disclose a shape of the concave reflector that would explicitly reflect rays to achieve the illuminance limitation of “a maximum illuminance on the horizontal surface is less than twice as high as an illuminance at a point on the horizontal surface”. The shape of the concave reflector does not appear to be critical but is an obvious choice in design. The only difference is the actual shape of the reflector to achieve the illuminance limitation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to design the reflector in various shapes of a concave reflector. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try a reflector having a concave shape, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 13, HUANG discloses three additional light emitting modules (figs. 1-10, of 5’s); and three additional reflectors (2’s), each of three additional reflectors configured to reflect light emitted from a corresponding one of the three additional light emitting modules.(2 per 5); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 17, HUANG discloses wherein the major diameter (figs. 1-10, 2 has a major diameter from top to bottom lengthwise/ longitudinal axis of 2), is tilted (fig. 8, 2 tilts) with respect to the horizontal surface (3 and/or floor under 3) , and a minor diameter (orthogonal to longitudinal axis of 2) of the concave reflective surface is parallel to the horizontal surface (3 and/or floor under 3) (figs. 11-12, vertical position adjustment mechanism 9, with 9.5 and 9.6 which connects to hinged plate 9.6, allows the lamp 10 to be tilted relative to the blackboard 3 and floor); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Regarding claim 19, YUN discloses that the concave reflective surface of each of the reflectors (113) comprises an inner reflective surface configured to reflect the light “towards” a “rectangular area” (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least) on the horizontal surface (fig. 7; not labelled, room floor below 100/ ceiling 30) .
(fig. 7; note, can be any rectangular area contained inside reflected lights area on target surface) .
But YUN fails to explicitly disclose four reflectors.
HUANG, however, discloses four light emitting modules (figs. 9-10; 5 per 2); and four reflectors (figs. 9-10; 2’s), each reflector (2) configured to reflect light emitted from a corresponding one of the four light emitting modules (of 5),(
(figs. 1-10, reflectors 2, LED light source on PCB 5, target surface 3)
(fig.8, tilted concave reflector 4 with reflective surface 2 above, LED light source of 5, and target surface 3)
(figs. 11-12, vertical position adjustment mechanism 9, with 9.5 and 9.6 which connects to hinged plate 9.6, allows the lamp 10 to be tilted relative to the blackboard 3 and floor)
(translation, pgs. 7-9); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Regarding claim 20, YUN discloses that an illuminance at a center of the horizontal surface (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least)
(pg. 5; Note reflector 110/113 can be various shapes).
Regarding claim 20, YUN discloses a concave reflector (2) (pg. 5; Note reflector 110/113 can be various shapes) and all the limitations and component parts as expressly recited in the claim, but does not disclose a shape of the concave reflector that would explicitly reflect rays to achieve the illuminance limitation of “a maximum illuminance on the horizontal surface is less than twice as high as an illuminance at a point on the horizontal surface”. The shape of the concave reflector does not appear to be critical but is an obvious choice in design. The only difference is the actual shape of the reflector to achieve the illuminance limitation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to design the reflector in various shapes of a concave reflector. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try a reflector having a concave shape, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
2. Claim(s) 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over YUN (KR 101939355 B1) in view of HUANG et al. (CN 110242899 A); hereinafter “the combined references”, as applied to claims 1 and/or 16 above, and further in light of LIN et al. (US 20150233568 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 14, HUANG discloses wherein the light emitting module and the three additional light emitting modules (figs. 1-10, of 5’s) and the reflector and the three additional reflectors (2’s) are arranged to illuminate
But the combined references fail to disclose wherein the light emitting module and the three additional light emitting modules and the reflector and the three additional reflectors are arranged to illuminate four quadrants of the horizontal surface
LIN, however, discloses a quadrant style lighting system (figs. 10-11, 4, 31) arranged to illuminate four quadrants (figs. 10-11, 4’s quadrant layout will illuminate four quadrants) of a horizontal surface (any surface under 4’s) [0068-0070]..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the invention of the combined references, with a quadrant style lighting system arranged to illuminate four quadrants of a target, as taught by LIN, to use as a substitution of one known lighting configuration arrangement (i.e. quadrant style) for another to obtain predictable quadrant target lighting results.
Regarding claim 15, YUN discloses that an illuminance at a center of the horizontal surface (fig. 7, arbitrarily defined on unlabeled floor, at least) illuminated with the sterilizing light a corresponding one of the three additional light emitting modules (figs. 1-10, of 5’s); (100, 120)
(pg. 5; Note reflector 110/113 can be various shapes) .
Regarding claim 15, YUN discloses a concave reflector (2) (pg. 5; Note reflector 110/113 can be various shapes) and all the limitations and component parts as expressly recited in the claim, but does not disclose a shape of the concave reflector that would explicitly reflect rays to achieve the illuminance limitation of “a maximum illuminance on the horizontal surface is less than twice as high as an illuminance at a point on the horizontal surface”. The shape of the concave reflector does not appear to be critical but is an obvious choice in design. The only difference is the actual shape of the reflector to achieve the illuminance limitation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to design the reflector in various shapes of a concave reflector. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try a reflector having a concave shape, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim(s) 18, the combined references disclose the elements of claim 16, see previous.
But the combined references fail to disclose a heat sink, wherein the four light emitting modules are equidistantly arranged in a radial pattern on the heat sink.
LIN, however, discloses a quadrant style lighting system with a heat sink (figs. 10-11; 2) , wherein the four light emitting modules (31’s, 4’s) are equidistantly arranged in a radial pattern on the heat sink (2) [0068-0070]..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the invention of the combined references, with a heat sink, wherein the four light emitting modules are equidistantly arranged in a radial pattern on the heat sink, as taught by LIN, to use for dissipating heat for thermal management of the lighting array to prevent overheating and equipment malfunctioning (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Smyth whose telephone number is 571-270-1746. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00AM - 6:00PM; Monday thru Friday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW SMYTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881