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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment filed 13 May 2026, the rejections under §112(b) have been withdrawn and the prior art rejection has been modified to include the Parker reference.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2014/0299793) in view of Maa et al. (US 2021/0308293; hereinafter “Maa”) and Parker (US 3,128,050).
In regard to claim 1, Deng discloses a decontamination device comprising: a housing comprising a head part (upper side of body 1 proximal to shield 2) and a handle part (lower side of body 1 proximal to cover 4); a light source comprising a first set of UV light emitting diodes (UV-LEDs on circuit board 5a) configured to emit UV light; a reflector device (reflecting cup 3) disposed between the light source and a UV-transparent area (the open area above the reflecting cup 3) in the head part of the housing; and a user interface (necessarily present in order for a user to switch modes as discussed in [0021] and to necessarily turn the device on and off), wherein the reflector device (reflecting cup 3) comprises a reflector structure (reflecting cup 3) in a proximal surface of the reflector device, the reflector structure comprising a plurality of reflector cavities (reflecting cellular cups 3b of 8 cups) comprising a first set of reflector cavities (every other cup of the eight reflecting cellular cups 3b as a “set” is an arbitrary designation) and a second set of reflector cavities (the remaining four of the reflecting cellular cups 3b as a “set” is an arbitrary designation), the first reflector cavities aligned with respective first light emitting diodes of the first set of UV light emitting diodes, each reflector cavity having a reflector surface, the first set of reflector cavities including a first primary reflector cavity (arbitrarily pick one cup of the first set as designated above) having a first primary reflector surface, and a first secondary reflector cavity (arbitrarily pick one cup of the second set as designated above) having a first secondary reflector surface, and the second set of reflector cavities including a second primary reflector cavity (arbitrarily pick another cup of the second set as designated above) having a second primary reflector surface, wherein the reflector device comprises a first primary opening (one of the “corresponding LED holes”; see paragraph [0020]) in the first primary reflector surface, wherein the reflector device comprises a first primary opening (“corresponding LED holes;” see line 7 of [0020]) in the first primary reflector surface and a first secondary opening (“corresponding LED holes;” see line 7 of [0020]) in the first secondary reflector surface, the first primary opening and the first secondary opening extending to a distal surface of the reflector device (i.e. the openings are through-holes). See Figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0006]-[0021].
Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein the UV light source is configured to emit UV-C light, wherein the first primary reflector surface is a metallic surface, and wherein the reflector device comprises a reflector body and a first layer coated onto the reflector body, wherein the reflector body is made of a body material and the first layer is made of a first reflector material, and wherein the first reflector material comprises a metal being one or more of aluminium, gold, copper, silver, and platinum.
Maa discloses a germicidal lighting device in the form of a flashlight having a light head and a handle. Maa also discloses wherein a device produces UV light in both the UVA and UVC wavelength bands using different sets of LEDs. Maa teaches that both UVC and UVA light each have a killing effect on certain bacteria and viruses and that UVC light emits light predominantly in the 100-280 nm wavelength range. See Figure 1, [0010], [0020] and [0023].
Maa does not explicitly disclose wherein the UVC light explicitly emits a wavelength between 255 and 275 nm. It is noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the recited wavelength range. Therefore, it would have been in the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum or workable range of wavelengths to be produced by the UVC light through routine experimentation in order to deliver a killing effect on certain bacteria and viruses. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Parker discloses a flashlight and reflector assembly. Parker teaches that the reflector assembly 18 has a molded reflector body 26 made of plastic and a metallic reflecting coating 28 made from aluminum. Parker teaches that the reflector assembly is “highly economical to manufacture.” See col. 1, lines 38-40; col. 1, line 67 through col. 2, line 4 and Figures 1-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the UV-C light source of Maa for the UV light source in the apparatus of Deng for the purpose of supplying UV wavelengths which are effective in killing certain bacteria and viruses. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the coated reflector construction of Parker to form the reflector of the above combined apparatus of Deng and Maa for the purpose of economically forming a reflector structure.
In regard to claim 4, Deng discloses wherein the reflector surfaces of the reflecting cellular cups 3b are concave aspheric surfaces as the surfaces are disclosed to be in “a shape similar to an inverted trapezium.” See [0006] and Figures 3-4.
In regard to claim 5, Deng does not disclose the diameter of the LED holes, but does teach that the height and diameters of the reflecting cellular cups 3b are “adjusted in proportion according to a size of the LED device.” See [0020]. Therefore, it would have been in the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have determined an appropriate size of the LED holes in the above combined apparatus for the purpose of receiving the respective LED light source given the desired size of the apparatus without creating any new or unexpected results. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claim 6, Deng discloses wherein the reflector structure (reflecting cup 3) comprises seven reflector cavities (figure 4 depicts nine reflecting cellular cups 3a and 3b and the open-ended claim does not exclude additional reflector cavities), wherein six reflector cavities (reflecting cellular cups 3b) including the first primary reflector cavity, the first secondary reflector cavity, and the second primary reflector cavity (as arbitrarily designated in the rejection of claim 1 above), are distributed around a third reflector cavity (reflecting cellular cup 3a). See Figures 3-4 and [0020].
In regard to claim 7, Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein a center-to-center distance between two neighboring reflector cavities is in the range from 10 mm to 25 mm, but does teach that the height and diameters of the reflecting cellular cups 3b are “adjusted in proportion according to a size of the LED device.” See [0020]. Therefore, it would have been in the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have determined an appropriate center-to-center spacing of neighboring reflector cavities in the above combined apparatus to achieve a desired size of the apparatus without creating any new or unexpected results. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claim 8, Deng disclose wherein the light source is additionally able to emit visible light as lighting LEDs and UV-LEDs are provided. See [0020]. The Examiner notes that due to the use of “and/or” the ability of the light source to emit UV-A light is optional if the light source can emit visible light.
It is additionally noted that Maa discloses a germicidal lighting device which produces UV light in both the UVA and UVC wavelength bands and visible light using different sets of LEDs. Maa teaches that both UVC and UVA light each have a killing effect on certain bacteria and viruses. See [0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the UV-C and UV-A light sources of Maa for the UV light source in the apparatus of Deng for the purpose of supplying UV wavelengths which are effective in killing certain bacteria and viruses. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In regard to claim 10, Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein each reflector cavity has a depth in the range from 7 mm to 50 mm, but does teach that the height and diameters of the reflecting cellular cups 3b are “adjusted in proportion according to a size of the LED device.” See [0020]. Therefore, it would have been in the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have determined an appropriate depth of reflector cavities in the above combined apparatus to achieve a desired size of the apparatus without creating any new or unexpected results. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claim 11, Deng discloses wherein the light source comprises a circuit board 5a and a first set of UV light emitting diodes mounted on the circuit board, the first set of UV light emitting diodes comprising at least three UV light emitting diodes as Deng teaches that the cups 3b can optionally receive the UV-LEDs according to the “actual situation.” See [0011].
Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein the UV-LEDs are configured to emit UV-C light.
Maa is applied in the same manner as for claim 1 above
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the UV-C LEDs of Maa for the UV light source in the apparatus of Deng for the purpose of supplying UV wavelengths which are effective in killing certain bacteria and viruses. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In regard to claim 13, Deng discloses wherein the decontamination device comprises a light controller (controlling circuit module 5) connected to the light source for controlling the light source, wherein the necessarily present interface is necessarily connected to the light controller in order to provide control of the device as disclosed in [0021], and wherein the light controller is configured to apply a first light scheme to the light source (such as the “composite function” as discussed in element c) of [0021]), wherein to apply the first light scheme comprises: to activate a first set of UV light emitting diodes of the light source (UV-LED); and to activate a second set of light emitting diodes of the light source (LEDx), wherein the second set of light emitting diodes is configured to emit visible light. See [0021].
In regard to claim 14, Deng discloses wherein the decontamination device is configured to operate in a plurality of states including a first operating state (such as UV MODE) and one or more of a an inactive state (it is viewed that the device would necessarily be capable of being turned off such as when no modes are selected), and a second operating state (such as LIGHT MODE), the light controller comprising an input detector (necessarily present in order to allow the switching of modes as discussed in [0021]) configured to detect a first input comprising a plurality of first input events (such as a request to switch modes) and, wherein the light controller is configured to, in response to a detection of the first input, move the decontamination device to the first operating state. See [0021].
In regard to claim 16, Deng discloses a decontamination assembly further comprising a UV shield (shield 2), wherein the head part necessarily comprises a coupling device for coupling the head part to a port of the UV shield as the structures are disclosed to be assembled together. See Figures 1-2 and [0017]-[0019].
Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein the shield is releasably coupled, but the Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, it is viewed that it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a releasable coupling between the shield and the body of the above combined apparatus for the purpose of allowing the device to be partially disassembled to allow for replacement of parts and/or size reduction for storage ease.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Maa, Parker and Nelson et al. (US 3,737,649; hereinafter “Nelson”).
In regard to claim 9, Deng is silent in regard to a first recess, a second recess, a first damping element, and a second damping element as claimed.
Nelson discloses a flashlight having a damping element (rubber shock absorber 26) for absorbing shock from the reflector assembly 23 of the flashlight. See col. 2, lines 38-41 and Figure 2a.
Nelson is silent in regard to the recited configuration wherein two damping elements are present and accommodated in two recesses of the reflector device. However, it is held that the shock absorber of Nelson is functionally equivalent to the recited damping element and recess arrangement of the claim as both structures would function to absorb shock. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shock absorber of Nelson to be in the claimed form as the claimed form would not result in any new or unexpected results as both configurations function to absorb shock and to have combined the modified shock absorber with the above combined apparatus for the purpose of preventing damage to the reflector device if the decontamination device were to be subjected to shock from being dropped or hit against another object.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Maa and Parker as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Yang (CN 11174120 with reliance upon the English-language machine translation).
In regard to claim 12, Deng discloses a circuit board as noted in the above rejection of claim 11 which would necessarily be made of material comprising a first layer of first material with a first thermal conductivity and a first heat capacity.
Deng, Maa and Parker are silent in regard to a heat sink.
Yang discloses a heat sink 103 which is located on the side of the light source circuit board 102 for cooling the light source. The heat sink of Yang would necessarily be formed of a second material having a second thermal conductivity and a second heat capacity. See [0064] and [0069]. Yang is silent in regard to the materials used to form the circuit board and the heat sink.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the heat sink of Yang with the above combined apparatus of Deng, Maa and Parker for the purpose of cooling the light sources to prevent overheating of the device. It would have also been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate materials based on their heat capacities with which to have used to form the circuit board and heat sink in order to appropriately and effectively dissipate heat produced by the light source of the apparatus and without creating any new or unexpected results. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the art would have necessarily recognized the benefit of selecting a material for forming the heat sink which has a high heat capacity as a high heat capacity would allow the heat sink to receive more heat from the light source without increasing its temperature.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Maa, Parker and Lee et al. (US 2009/0032527; hereinafter “Lee”).
In regard to claim 15, Deng is silent in regard to the additional components of the recited decontamination system.
Lee discloses a decontamination system (UV sterilizer 10) comprising a container (casing 11) having an inner volume (chamber 11A) defined by at least one wall including a first wall (top side of casing); a carrier device (turntable 18) rotatably arranged about a rotation axis in the inner volume; a motor (turntable motor M) configured to rotate the carrier device; a first port (opening 11B) in the first wall, wherein the first port is configured to couple a UV light (UV lamp 15) to the container.
Lee is silent in regard to a second port in a wall of the container, but it is viewed that it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the port of Lee for the purpose of providing additional UV lamps and/or openings with which to irradiate the interior of the container to provide more irradiation to the object being treated or a different orientation of irradiation in order to successfully irradiation objects with different shapes or forms. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the above combined apparatus for the UV lamp of Lee for the purpose of allowing for the separation of the decontamination device such that the decontamination device can have separate utility and/or for the purpose of enabling visible light and UV light to be delivered to the interior volume of the container. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Maa does not disclose a handheld lighting device with both UVC and UVA lights. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Maa discloses in [0023] that all disclosed features are not “limited to the specific features or applications described herein.” Further, paragraph [0010] makes clear that the substitution of two groupings of UV LEDs with different wavelength ranges (such as UVC and UVA) for a set of UV light sources is beneficial to maximize the germicidal effect of the light device.
Applicant argues that Maa does not disclose the wavelength range of between 255 and 275 nm. The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. It is noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the recited wavelength range while Maa discloses that the UVC light sources produce predominantly in the 100-280 nm range. Therefore, it would have been in the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum or workable range of wavelengths to be produced by the UVC light through routine experimentation in order to deliver a killing effect on certain bacteria and viruses. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Applicant argues that the 255 to 275 nm wavelength range would not have been obvious as it “leads to a surprising and unexpectedly high reflectance value” as reportedly taught in lines 29-33 of page 57 of the Specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited wavelength range has not been taught in the specification to result in a high reflectance value. No explicit benefit of the recited wavelength range has been disclosed in the specification. Additionally, the specification does not disclose what conditions or materials are needed to result in “at least 98% of the light emitted from the light source” to be reflected. Thus, no evidence exists in the specification that the wavelength range results in an unexpectedly high reflectance value.
Applicant argues that Deng only discloses a single reflecting cellular cup 3a for housing UV LEDs. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Deng also teaches that that the “reflecting cellular cups 3b around the center distribute the light of the UV-LED, and the reflecting cellular cups 3a in the center distribute the light of the lighting LEDs.” See [0020]. Therefore, it is held that Deng teaches that the lighting and UV LEDs can be positionally swapped in the circuit board design as desired.
Applicant argues that Deng does not disclose the recited reflector cavities. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Deng teaches that the reflecting cellular cups 3a and 3b receive the LEDs from the circuit board 5a “through corresponding LEDs holes” which are equivalent to the recited reflector cavity structure. See [0020].
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the limitation of wherein “the body material is different from the first reflector material.” The Examiner has cited Parker in order to teach the amended limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights