DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 07/08/2026. Claims 19-36 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
4. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.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.
Response to Arguments
5. In the arguments presented on p.5 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that the 103 rejection of record in view of Hawkins cannot be sustained because the functional/intended use limitations in the previous claimset dated 12/11/2025 rejected on a capability basis are now positively recited with the amendment to the method claim 19.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hawkins, further in view of Leanse (et al.).
The Examiner would like to mention that secondary reference Leanse teaches the positively recited method steps (killing sequence) and the functional/intended use limitations (MRSA having a photosensitive defense mechanism); thus, incorporating the killing sequence method steps to the control device of Hawkins via automation of a manual activity would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reject amended claim 19.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 27 objected to because of the following informalities: “the method of claim 1” should be corrected to “the method of claim 19”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
8. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 has the same scope as claim 19, because the entire claim 21 limitation of “wherein said emitted light is white light in at least one of said first mode or said second mode, said white light having a chromaticity with Duv of less than 5E-3 from the Planckian locus” already exists in claim 19 verbatim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al. (US 20190083667 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Leanse et al. (provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 10/30/2023), evidenced by ScienceDirect (cited in prior office action PTO-892 form) with respect to claim 31.
Regarding claim 19, Hawkins teaches
a method of using a light system to inactivate microbes (method 1200, Fig. 16, utilizing light fixture 1000 of Fig. 12C, see [0133], target microbes being MRSA, where Fig. 1-2 is a broad embodiment), said light system comprising:
a plurality of light sources (fixture 1000, Fig. 12C) comprising at least,
a first light source configured for emitting a first light having a first wavelength (LEDs 1056 of fixture 1000 emitting 400-420 nm light, Fig. 12C); and
a second light source configured for emitting a second light having a second wavelength, different from said first wavelength (LEDs 1060 of fixture 1000 emitting 460-480 nm light, Fig. 12C);
a controller (central controller of the server 66 in communication with the local controller of fixture 1000, Fig. 12A-C, see [0117]) for selectively powering said plurality of light sources in a plurality of modes to emit emitted light from said light system ([0139], where the lighting fixtures “may be controlled or adjusted. This may be done automatically, e.g., when the one or more controllers detect, via one or more sensors, that the wavelength, the intensity, the bandwidth, or some other parameter of the disinfecting light has strayed, responsive to a control signal received from a central controller located remotely from the one or more lighting fixtures, and/or responsive to an input received from a user or operator of the lighting fixtures”),
It is important to note that Hawkins states that the lighting fixtures in the method of Fig. 16 can be operated in a plurality of different modes controlled by the “one or more controllers communicatively connected to the light fixtures”, to which the wavelength distribution to be emitted can be selected at will automatically ([0139]).
Hawkins fails to teach a method of using a light system for suppressing a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism,
a first lighting device configured for emitting a first light having a first wavelength suitable for photolyzing or otherwise inactivating the microbe, a second lighting device configured for emitting a second light having a second wavelength, different from said first wavelength, suitable for disrupting said photosensitive defense mechanism,
wherein said plurality of modes comprises at least a first mode and a second mode, wherein, in said first mode, at least said first light source is powered, and, in said second mode, at least said second light source is powered; and
said method comprising:
causing said controller to emit said emitted light in said plurality of modes in a killing sequence comprising:
operating said light system in said second mode by powering at least said second light source to emit said second light to disrupt said photosensitive defense mechanism; and
after operating said light system in said second mode, operating said light system in said first mode by powering at least said first light source to emit said first light into said space to photolyze or otherwise inactivate said microbe after disruption of said photosensitive defense mechanism.
Leanse teaches the deactivation of MRSA having a photosensitive defense mechanism (“staphyloxanthin, the carotenoid pigment in MRSA cells, promoted resistance to the antimicrobial effects of 405 nm light”, abstract), where a dual-wavelength irradiation approach was used (460 nm and 405 nm light, see abstract), the result being “significant killing of MRSA”, further mentioning “460 nm irradiation can lyse the STX pigment, rendering MRSA more sensitive to ROS-mediated killing” (i.e., designating the 460 nm radiation to a “second mode”), thus now sensitizing MRSA to 405 nm light and significant increase in killing efficiency (2nd paragraph of “Results”, i.e., designating the 405 nm radiation to a “first mode”), ultimately teaching the 460 nm “weakening” step before the 405 nm inactivation step of the MRSA.
Hawkins and Leanse are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dual-wavelength disinfection of microbes (Hawkins’s 460-480 nm light and 400-420 nm light of lighting fixture 1000 compared to Leanse’s 460 nm and 405 nm light, respectively), specifically MRSA.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify: one, the first light source of Hawkins’s lighting fixture by incorporating Leanse’s first mode of 405 nm light, and two, the second light source of Hawkins’s lighting fixture by incorporating Leanse’s second mode of 460 nm light, because the second mode would sensitize the MRSA, to which the first mode would more effectively inactivate the weakened/sensitized MRSA from the second mode (Leanse, 2nd paragraph of “Results”), providing a method of using a light system for suppressing a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism (MRSA having staphyloxanthin) with a reasonable expectation of success.
In continuation, Leanse’s teachings of the 460 nm light being designated in a “second mode” irradiated before the 405 nm light “first mode” would render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate the controller(s) of the lighting fixture of modified Hawkins in the kill sequence order as taught by Leanse, because the second mode would sensitize the MRSA, to which the first mode would more effectively inactivate the weakened/sensitized MRSA only after the second mode (Leanse, 2nd paragraph of “Results”), providing a method of using a light system for suppressing a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism (MRSA having staphyloxanthin) with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, “providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art” (see MPEP 2144.04,III).
With these modifications, Hawkins in view of Leanse would teach:
a first lighting device (Hawkins, LEDs 1056, Fig. 12C) configured for emitting a first light having a first wavelength suitable for photolyzing or otherwise inactivating the microbe (Leanse, emitting 405 nm light, 2nd paragraph of “Results”),
a second lighting device (Hawkins, LEDs 1060, Fig. 12C) configured for emitting a second light having a second wavelength, different from said first wavelength, suitable for disrupting said photosensitive defense mechanism (Leanse, emitting 460 nm light, 2nd paragraph of “Results”),
wherein said plurality of modes comprises at least a first mode (Leanse, 405 nm light) and a second mode (Leanse, 460 nm light), wherein, in said first mode, at least said first light source is powered (Hawkins’s LEDs 1056, Fig. 12C), and, in said second mode, at least said second light source is powered (Hawkins’s LEDs 1060, Fig. 12C); and
said method comprising:
causing said controller (Hawkins, server 66 in communication with the local controllers of fixture 1000, Fig. 1 and 12C) to emit said emitted light in said plurality of modes (Hawkins, [0139]) in a killing sequence comprising:
operating said light system in said second mode by powering at least said second light source to emit said second light to disrupt said photosensitive defense mechanism; and
after operating said light system in said second mode, operating said light system in said first mode by powering at least said first light source to emit said first light into said space to photolyze or otherwise inactivate said microbe after disruption of said photosensitive defense mechanism (Leanse’s teachings of 460 nm light exposure before 405 nm light exposure).
Modified Hawkins mentions how the light emitted from the fixture is a non-white light ([0116]), thus failing to teach wherein said emitted light in the first or second modes is white light.
However, in an alternative embodiment via Fig. 9A-D, Hawkins teaches the manipulation of the collectively emitted light by complementing the 405 nm (i.e., first mode) disinfecting light source (556, Fig. 9D) with another set of LEDs (560, Fig. 9D) to create a white light having “(u′,v′) coordinates on the 1976 CIE Chromaticity Diagram that lie on a curve that is between 0.035 Duv below and 0.035 above a planckian locus” ([0094]) in order to create a “combined or blended light output by the light fixture” that “is aesthetically pleasing to humans” ([0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lighting fixture of modified Hawkins by further incorporating a plurality of complementary LEDs that provide a white light with a chromaticity with Duv of between 0.035 Duv below and 0.035 above the Planckian locus when the first mode 405 nm light is emitted as taught by the Fig. 9A-D embodiment of Hawkins, because doing so would create a “combined or blended light output by the light fixture” that “is aesthetically pleasing to humans” (Hawkins, [0094]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the limitation of “Duv of less than 5E-3 from the Planckian locus” when compared to Hawkins’s teachings of between 0.035 Duv below and 0.035 above the Planckian locus, MPEP 2144.05(I) states that “in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.
With this modification, modified Hawkins would teach wherein said emitted light is white light in at least one of said first mode or said second mode (first mode provide disinfecting wavelengths of radiation, to which the complementary LEDs would provide white light for an aesthetic effect).
Regarding claim 20, Hawkins in view of Leanse teaches wherein said microbe is MRSA (Hawkins, abstract, and Leanse, abstract) and said photosensitive defense mechanism is staphyloxanthin pigment that absorbs free radicals released (Leanse, staphyloxanthin is an antioxidant and membrane-bound carotenoid pigment of MRSA, 1st paragraph of “Introduction”) during said first mode (Leanse, “STX promoted resistance in S. aureus to 405 nm light-mediated killing”, see 1st paragraph of “Results”, equating to modified Hawkins’ first light source of 405 nm as stated in claim 19 rejection above), and wherein said second mode disrupts said staphyloxanthin pigment (Leanse, “460 nm irradiation can lyse the STX pigment, rendering MRSA more sensitive to ROS-mediated killing”, 2nd paragraph of “Results”, equating to modified Hawkins’ second light source of 460 nm as stated in claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said emitted light is white light in at least one of said first mode or said second mode (see claim 19 rejection above), said white light having a chromaticity with Duv of less than 5E-3 from the Planckian locus ([0094]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said emitted light is said white light in said first mode (see claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding claim 23, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said emitted light is said white light in said first mode (see claim 19 rejection above), but fails to teach white light in said second mode.
It is important to note that Hawkins mentions that both 400-420 nm light and 460-480 light in their respective LEDs 1056 and 1060 of fixture 1000 provide a disinfecting functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also modify the lighting fixture of modified Hawkins by further incorporating a plurality of complementary LEDs that provide a white light with a chromaticity with Duv of between 0.035 Duv below and 0.035 above the Planckian locus when the disinfecting 460 nm light is emitted as taught by the Fig. 9A-D embodiment of Hawkins, because doing so would create a “combined or blended light output by the light fixture” that “is aesthetically pleasing to humans” (Hawkins, [0094]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said emitted light in said second mode has a chromaticity with a Duv of greater than 5E-3 from the Planckian locus (emitted white light in second mode, see claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding claim 25, Hawkins in view of Leanse teaches wherein said second light source is not powered in said first mode (Leanse, no mention of 460 nm light being powered at the same time 405 nm light is), but fails to teach wherein said first and second light sources are powered in said second mode.
However, Hawkins mentions that “the arrangement of one or more lighting fixtures is configured to at least partially provide or output (e.g., emit) disinfecting light (e.g., light having a wavelength of between 380 nm and 420 nm, and more particularly between 400 nm and 420 nm, light having a wavelength of between 460 nm and 480 nm)” ([0133]).
Thus, it is important to note that Hawkins states that the lighting fixtures in the method of Fig. 16 can be operated in a plurality of different modes controlled by the “one or more controllers communicatively connected to the light fixtures”, to which the wavelength distribution to be emitted can be selected at will automatically ([0139]).
Given that there are two disinfecting wavelengths provided in modified Hawkins’s apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try emitting both 405 and 460 nm light from the first and second light sources as the second mode of modified Hawkins with a reasonable expectation of success, because there are a finite number of known ways to emit 460 nm light given the only two (405 and 460 nm) disinfecting wavelengths of the apparatus (MPEP 2143, Rationale E).
Regarding claim 26, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said light system further comprising a sensor for determining occupancy in a space being irradiated by said emitted light (occupancy sensor 108, Fig. 2, where “the light fixture 1000 may provide light responsive to occupancy data obtained by the occupancy sensor”, [0117]), and wherein said controller (server 66 in communication with controller of fixture 1000, [0117]) is configured to irradiate said space in said second mode when said space is not occupied (“The lighting device 104 can, for example, responsive to data indicating that the environment 100 is vacant (i.e., not occupied), be controlled so as to output visible light consisting only of the specially configured narrow spectrum visible light”, Fig. 2 and [0071], to which the narrow spectrum visible light is the 460 nm light of the second mode because the first mode emits white light as stated in claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding claim 27, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said controller alternates repeatedly between said first and second modes (the occupancy sensor 108 in communication with the server 66 and controller of fixture 1000 detecting vacancy/occupancy alternatingly (correlated with second/first modes, respectively) would mean the second and first modes are alternating as well).
Regarding claim 28, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said controller (server 66 and controller of fixture 1000, Fig. 1, 12C, and [0117]) selectively powers said plurality of light sources to emit light in at least one more additional mode (“The minimum integrated irradiance of the disinfecting light provided by all of the second LEDs 1060 may be… equal to the minimum integrated irradiance of the disinfecting light provided by all of the first LEDs 1056”, Fig. 12C and [0114], where the equal irradiance of both 405 and 460 nm light is an additional mode).
Regarding claim 29, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said controller (server 66 and controller of fixture 1000, Fig. 1, 12C, and [0117]) selectively powers said plurality of light sources in a kill sequence of said first mode (405 nm light exposure), said second mode (460 nm light exposure) and said one or more additional modes (combined, equal exposure of 405 and 460 nm light).
Regarding claim 30, modified Hawkins teaches wherein each mode is characterized by a dose of a certain SPD fraction (405 nm light exposure of the first mode has a specific spectral power distribution, as does the 460 nm second mode).
Regarding claim 31, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said first light source (1056, Fig. 12C in combination with the complementary “white light” LEDs of the Fig. 9A-D embodiment as shown in the claim 19 rejection above) has a peak wavelength between 380nm and 420nm ([0112]), and wherein the first light source has an SPD with an overall power between 380 nm and 780 nm (white light, which contains all colors in the visible light spectrum, is emitted by first lighting assembly in first mode has a power distribution in the visible range defined as 380-780 nm, see p.1 of ScienceDirect), and a violet power fraction between 380nm and 420nm, wherein the violet power fraction is at least 25% of the overall power (“the light provided by the lighting device 104 may have a component of spectral energy measured in the 380 nm to 420 nm wavelength range that is greater than 10%, 15%, or 20%”, [0065], where lighting device 104 of Fig. 2 is a broad embodiment of the lighting fixture 1000 of Fig. 12C, see [0038-0040]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said first light source (1056, Fig. 12C) has a peak wavelength of 380nm, 395nm or 405nm (405 nm, see claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding claim 33, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said first light source (1056, Fig. 12C) has a peak wavelength of 405nm (405 nm, see claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding claim 34, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said second light (1060, Fig. 12C) has an SPD blue fraction of at least 25% (460 nm light emitted as stated in claim 19 rejection above is standalone (i.e., no other wavelength is emitted) in its respective second mode, and thus has an SPD blue fraction of 100%).
Regarding claim 35, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said second light (1060, Fig. 12C) has a peak wavelength of 450nm and 500nm (460 nm, see claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding claim 36, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said second light (1060, Fig. 12C) has a peak wavelength of 460nm (460 nm, see claim 19 rejection above).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights