DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 3/16/2026. Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending in the application. Claims 14-16 have been withdrawn and claims 1 and 3-13 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection of claim 2 is obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110327474 A) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 04/14/2023) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20090079355 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a disinfection light source (Fig. 1, safety ultraviolet device 1, page 3, para 3) comprising: one or more disinfection light emitters (Fig. 1, lamp 2); and
electronics configured to conduct electric power received by the electronics to the one or more disinfection light emitters to drive the one or more disinfection light sources to emit light (controller 5, wiring terminal, connector and junction box 3, page 4, para 1),
the electronics including a safety interlock circuit (controller 5, page 4, para 3) that includes: an ammeter connected to measure electric current flowing through the one or more disinfection light emitters (page 4, para 3, current sensor = ammeter configured to measure current);
a switch connected to interrupt the conduction of the electric power to the one or more disinfection light emitters (page 4, para 3, controller has actuation and release mechanism, understood to be a switch).
However, Wang does not teach a comparator connected to compare the electric current measured by the ammeter with an electrical reference value, a timer circuit configured to (i) run over a delay interval while the comparator indicates the electric current measured by the ammeter exceeds the electrical reference value timer circuit wherein the timer circuit is configured to (i) run over a delay interval while the analysis circuit detects a high irradiation condition and to (ii) stop running and reset if the analysis circuit ceases to detect the high irradiation condition. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with improving the energy efficiency of the disinfection lights, motivating one to turn towards Zhou.
Zhou teaches a digital driver system (Fig. 1, 100) for controlling solid state lighting such as LEDs (Fig. 1, 110) comprising a circuit (Fig. 1, digital LED driver 100 understood to be an interlock circuit, [0042-0043] that includes:
an ammeter connected to measure electric current flowing through the LEDs (Fig. 1, current sensor 160 senses current across LED 110 as a corresponding voltage level [0042-0044])
a comparator connected to compare the electric current measured by the ammeter with an electrical reference value (Fig. 1, comparators 130, 135, 140 compare electric current measured by current sensor with a reference voltage [0044] = electrical reference value),
a timer circuit (Fig. 1, controller 125 understood to contain a timer circuit [0044]) configured to (i) run over a delay interval while the comparator indicates the electric current measured by the ammeter exceeds the electrical reference value (controller 125 configured to run a delay interval and determine various on/off cycle when second comparator 130 indicates an overcurrent [0045-0049]), and to (ii) stop running and reset if the analysis circuit ceases to detect the high irradiation condition comparator indicates the electric current measured by the ammeter ceases to exceed the electrical reference value (controller 125 understood to stop running and reset on/off interval once overcurrent is no longer detected [0045-0049]),
a switch (Fig. 1, switch 155, [0042-0043]) connected to interrupt the conduction of the electric power to the one or more light emitters in response to the running timer circuit completing the delay interval (switch 155 is activated by controller 125 to interrupt electrical power [current] to light source in response to end of delay interval [0045-0046]). Zhou teaches the LED driver circuitry to improve the efficiency of a lighting device by precisely regulating the current [0011].
Zhou is considered to analogous to Wang and the claimed invention since all are drawn to lighting systems and circuitry. 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 disinfection lighting system as taught by Wang with the interlock circuitry (including the switch, ammeter, comparator, and timer circuit) as taught by Zhou because Zhou teaches the safety interlock circuit to control an LED system with a high degree of control and efficiency [0011] and because this involves the combination of elements (the lighting system of Wang and the safety interlock circuit of Zhou) to yield a predictable result (more efficient power control system for an LED) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1 wherein the safety interlock circuit further includes: a voltage regulator driven by the electric power and generating the electrical reference value (Zhou, Fig. 1, voltage generator 145 generates electrical reference value [0044])
Regarding claim 4, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1 wherein the voltage regulator further extracts operational power for the safety interlock circuit from the electric power (Zhou, Fig. 1, voltage regulator 145 understood to draw power from the electric power source [0024])
Regarding claim 5, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1 wherein the safety interlock circuit is configured to immediately operate the switch to interrupt the conduction of the electric power to the one or more disinfection light emitters in response to the comparator indicating the electric current measured by the ammeter exceeds an immediate shutoff electrical reference value that is higher than the electrical reference value (Zhou, controller 125 configured to run a delay interval and actuate switch 155 to interrupt power in a an on/off cycle when second comparator 130 indicates an overcurrent [0045-0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1, further comprising: an indicator connected to produce a human-perceptible high irradiation indication in response to the comparator indicating the electric current measured by the ammeter exceeds the electrical reference value (Wang, page 4, para 3, controller alarms and prompts user when current value deviates from a normal range = understood to be human-perceptible high irradiation condition indicator).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1, including the safety interlock circuit (Zhou, controller 125 = safety interlock circuit) wherein the safety interlock circuit further includes: a passive transistor shutoff connected to operate the switch to interrupt the conduction of the electric power to the one or more disinfection light emitters in response to operational electrical power to the safety interlock circuit being below a minimum operational power level (Zhou, comparator 135 configured to detect a low voltage level and communicate with controller 125 to operate switch 155 to interrupt conduction to the light source [0045-0049] = understood to be a passive transistor shutoff).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110327474 A) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20090079355 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Smestad (US 6429438 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1, wherein the safety interlock including an ammeter to measure current (Wang, page 4, para 3, controller 5 includes current sensor) but does not teach wherein the interlock circuit further includes an adjustment sub-circuit including at least a potentiometer, wherein the adjustment sub-circuit is configured to adjust the electric current measured by the ammeter based on a setting of the potentiometer. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with tuning the responsiveness of the ammeter to the current, motivating one to turn towards Smestad.
Smestad teaches an ultraviolet light detection system for a disinfection unit [abstract] comprising a control system (Fig. 5) with a circuit (68) configured to monitor an amount of UV light and an adjustment sub-circuit (76) with a potentiometer configured to adjust the responsiveness of an amplifier (78) and set a threshold value for a voltage (col 8, lines 1-15, 35-50), wherein amplifiers are understood to measure both current and voltage drop.
Smestad is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection systems. 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 safety interlock circuit as taught by Modified Wang with the adjustment sub circuit as taught by Smestad because Smestad teaches the sub-circuit to adjust the responsiveness of a current detector (col 8, lines 35-50) and this involves the combination of elements (the ammeter of Modified Wang and the sub-circuit of Smestad) to yield a predictable result (adjustable electric current detector) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110327474 A) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20090079355 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Smith et al. (US 20190092652 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1 comprising a timer circuit, but does not teach wherein the timer circuit comprises a programmable digital timer having the delay interval set in hardware by circuit components including at least a resonant circuit connected with the programmable digital timer. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how to manually adjust the timing circuit motivating one to turn towards Smith.
Smith teaches a purification apparatus for treating fluids using UV bulbs ([abstract], [0014]) comprising a user interface configured to control purification operations [0035-0036] and a resonant circuit connected to the UV bulbs and control system [0035-0037], configured control the luminosity/intensity of light emitted by the bulb as well as frequency/phase adjustments [0040]. Smith further teaches the user interface to comprise a timer for a user to manually set [0063].
Smith is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the sterilization arts. 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 timing circuit as taught by Modified Wang to include the user interface and resonant circuit as taught by Smith because Smith teaches the components to enable a user to have greater control over a UV irradiating bulb including intensity, frequency, phase, and duration ([0035-0037], [0060]) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A) and MPE 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110327474 A) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20090079355 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chemel et al. (US 20200267810 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the light source further comprises: an indicator LED configured to emit visible light that is connected in series with the one or more disinfection light emitters; whereby the electric power conducted to the one or more disinfection light emitters also drives the indicator LED to emit the visible light. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with alerting the attention of an operator to an emergency condition, motivating one to turn towards Chemel.
Chemel teaches a control system for a variable lighting apparatus [abstract] comprising a colored LED light bar that may blink in the case of emergency situations to alert operators ([0410], [0420], [0471]).
Chemel is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to lighting control 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 disinfection light source, specifically the electronic power circuit, as taught by Modified Wang with the emergency light bar as taught by Chemel because Chemel teaches the light bar to blink in case of emergency and alert an operator to an emergency situation or when sensors detect a specified condition ([0410], [0420], [0471]) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The Examiner notes the recitation of “indicator LED” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the functional recitation of the apparatus rather than structure (MPEP 2114(II)). A functional recitation of the claimed invention 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 claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). Therefore, the apparatus of Modified Wang contains the presently claimed structure of an LED connected in series with the disinfection light emitters and configured to emit visible light and would have the ability to perform the functions recited in the claim.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110327474 A) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20090079355 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rodriguez et al. (US 20220062468 A1) (eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 8/28/2020).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1, including one or more disinfection light emitters configured to emit ultraviolet light (Wang, page 2, para 4 teaches ultraviolet lamp) but does not teach wherein the emitters comprise LEDs.
Rodriguez teaches a disinfection lighting system [abstract] comprising an array of cleansing LEDs (21) and an array of white light LEDs (19) connected in series (Fig. 1). Rodriguez also teaches a controller (13) coupled to the arrays configured to emit the white light sources selectively based on sensed conditions [0033-0034, 0036-0037].
Rodriguez is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection systems. 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 disinfection light as taught by Modified Wang to include the plurality of UV LEDs as taught by Rodriguez to increase the sterilizing effect of emitted UV radiation and this involves the combination of known equivalents (UV lamp and UV LEDs) for the same purpose (sterilization) and the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.06 and 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110327474 A) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20090079355 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Collins et al. (US 20170290933 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1, including one or more disinfection light emitters configured to emit ultraviolet light (Wang, page 2, para 4 teaches ultraviolet lamp) but does not teach wherein the one or more disinfection light emitters comprise LEDs configured to emit ultraviolet light having a maximum peak in a wavelength range of 240 nanometers to 280 nanometers inclusive. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the optimal UV wavelength for deactivating pathogens motivating one to turn towards Collins.
Collins teaches an ultraviolet disinfection system [abstract] comprising a UV LED configured to emit within a peak wavelength between 210-290 nm [0011] which is sufficient to eradicate microorganisms in air and on a surface [0002].
Collins is considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are drawn to disinfection systems. 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 disinfection light source as taught by Modified Wang to include the UV LED as taught by Collins to increase the amount of UV irradiation applied to an area and improve sterilization 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 13, Modified Wang teaches the disinfection light source of claim 1, including one or more disinfection light emitters configured to emit ultraviolet light (Wang, page 2, para 4 teaches ultraviolet lamp) but does not teach wherein the light source further comprises a circuit board; wherein the electronics and the one or more disinfection light emitters are mounted on the circuit board to form the disinfection light source as a unitary light source. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how to arrange the UV light sources to provide a sufficient radiation to a given area.
Collins teaches an ultraviolet disinfection system [abstract] comprising a UV LED configured to emit within a peak wavelength between 210-290 nm [0011], wherein the LED may be packaged with a plurality of LEDs and formed on a circuit board as unitary light source to provide radiation sufficient for a given application [0013].
Collins is considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are drawn to disinfection systems. 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 disinfection light source as taught by Modified Wang to include the UV LED as taught by Collins to increase the amount of UV irradiation applied to an area and improve sterilization and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 8-10, of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026 the Applicant argues that Wang does not teach turning off UV irradiation in response to a current level exceeding an electrical reference value and only issues an alarm in response 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 Wang in view of Zhou. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 10-11, of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026 the Applicant argues that the timer circuit as taught by Wang is a separate component than the current sensor and is only used to operate the lamp for a preset duration, not turn off the UV lamp in response to a value detected by the current sensor 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 Wang in view of Zhou. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 11, of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026 the Applicant argues that the current sensor and timer as taught by Chemell are unconnected components and uses an occupancy sensor to determine when to actuate a timer circuit, not a current measurement 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 Wang in view of Zhou. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 12, of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026 the Applicant argues that Roy teaches an overprotection circuit that monitors current and turns off the current when an over-current condition is detected but does not employ a timer to allow the over-current to persist for a delay interval 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 Wang in view of Zhou. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 12-13, of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026 the Applicant argues that Wang does not teach wherein the controller is a voltage regulator driven by the electric power and generating an electrical reference value with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 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 Wang in view of Zhou. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 13 of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026 the Applicant argues that Wang does not teach wherein the controller further extracts operational power for the safety interlock circuit from the electric power 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. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Wang in view of Zhou. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 14-15 of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026 the Applicant argues that Modified Wang does not teach wherein the safety interlock circuit is configured to immediately operate the switch to interrupt the conduction of the electric power to the one or more disinfection light emitters in response to the comparator indicating the electric current measured by the ammeter exceeds and immediate shutoff reference value that is higher than the electrical reference value with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 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 Wang in view of Zhou. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 15-16 of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026 the Applicant argues that Modified Wang and Roy do not teach wherein the safety interlock circuit further comprises a passive transistor shutoff with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 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 Wang in view of Zhou. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights