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 .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.2-3 of the remarks, the Applicant argues that Hawkins does not teach the recited claim 1 limitation of a light system for suppressing a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism.
The claim language of “for suppressing a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism” is an intended use limitation. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Hawkins and is fully capable of applying it onto a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Contrastingly, in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 19, the method limitation of “a method of using the light system for suppressing a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism” is positively recited and thus requires a teaching of this method. Thus, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of Hawkins, further in view of Leanse et al.
In the arguments presented on p.3 of the remarks, the Applicant argues that Hawkins does not teach the Applicant’s narrower ±0.005 claimed range because Hawkins teaches a broader range of ±0.035 Duv from the Planckian locus.
Because this claim was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, Hawkins’ range of ±0.035 contains the Applicant’s narrower ±0.005 claimed range, where claimed ranges that "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" have a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the light system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be interpreted as if it says “the light system of claim 1”.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al. (US 20190083667 A1), evidenced by ScienceDirect (cited in PTO-892 form) with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 1, Hawkins teaches a light system (Fig. 2 and 9A-9G, where Fig. 9A-9G is a more specific rendition of Fig. 2, see [0010] and [0023]), said light system comprising:
a light source (light fixture 500, Fig. 9C) comprising at least, a first light source (first light sources 556 and second light sources 560, Fig. 9C) configured for emitting a first light having a first wavelength suitable for photolyzing or otherwise inactivating the microbe (wavelengths of 400-420 nm, [0093]); and
a controller (controller 520, Fig. 9D) for selectively powering said light source in a mode to emit emitted light from said light system (“responsive to instructions or commands received from the controller 520, the first LED driver 564 is configured to power the first LEDs 556”, Fig. 9D and [0094]),
said mode comprises at least a first mode (occupancy is detected, [0097]) wherein, in said first mode, at least said first light source is powered (“emit light from the first LEDs 556”, Fig. 9D and [0097]); and wherein said emitted light is white light in at least one of said first mode (“and the second LEDs 560, thereby producing a blended or combined output of white visible light discussed above”, Fig. 9D and [0097]), said white light having a chromaticity with Duv of less than 5E- 3 from the Planckian locus (“(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] and see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding the claim language of “for suppressing a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism”, this is an intended use limitation. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Hawkins and is fully capable of applying it onto a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114). Specifically, Hawkins teaches applying the lighting system to microbes such as MRSA, where Applicant’s specification mentions MRSA being a potential microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism ([0009]), so applying it to a microbe having a photosensitive mechanism is possible.
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Hawkins in the embodiment of Fig. 9A-9G fails to teach a second light source configured for emitting a second light having a second wavelength, different from said first wavelength, suitable for disrupting said photosensitive defense mechanism, and a controller for selectively powering said second light source in a second mode and, in said second mode, at least said second light source is powered.
Hawkins in the embodiment of Fig. 12A-12C teaches a light source (LEDs 1056 and 1060, Fig. 12A) configured for emitting a second light having a second wavelength, different from said first wavelength (“the second LEDs 1060 can be configured to provide disinfecting light having a wavelength of between 460 nm to 480 nm”, Fig. 12A and [0114]), suitable for disrupting said photosensitive defense mechanism (Applicant’s specification denotes this limitation as inherent to second light source, see [0011], to which [0027] mentions “the second light source is powered to emit a peak wavelength of 460nm light”, and Hawkins teaches a second light source having wavelength 460 nm, [0114]), and
a controller ([0117]) for selectively powering said second light source in a second mode ([0115]) and, in said second mode, at least said second light source is powered (“this may be achieved by varying the total power provided by the first LEDs 1056 via, for example, a controller”, Fig. 12A and [0112]).
Hawkins further mentions that “having the first LEDs 1056 contribute less power removes some 400 nm to 420 nm disinfecting light from the overall light output by the light fixture 1000, as studies have shown that in some applications, too much 400 nm to 420 nm disinfecting light causes disorientation, headaches, and insomnia for occupants of the environment 100” ([0113]).
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 Hawkins’ Fig. 9A-9G light fixture having a first lighting assembly by incorporating Hawkins’ Fig. 12A-12C embodiment of a second lighting assembly emitting a different disinfecting wavelength in order to reduce the side effects caused by too much 400-420 nm disinfecting light ([0113]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said second light source is not powered in said first mode (no mention of second light sources from Fig. 12A-12C embodiment on the Fig. 9A-9G embodiment), but fails to explicitly state wherein said first and second light sources are powered in said second mode. It is important to note that the controller of Hawkins has the capability of manipulating the activation/deactivation of the first lighting unit through drivers (LED drivers 564 and 568 for first lighting unit, Fig. 9D).
It would have been obvious to modify the controller of Fig. 9D to be operatively connected to the second lighting unit of Fig. 12A-12C in the same manner as the first lighting unit of Fig. 9A-9G (i.e., with drivers) in order to control the activation/deactivation of first and second lighting units.
In continuation in view of this modification, modified Hawkins teaches an occupancy sensor (occupancy sensor 108 for lighting device 104, Fig. 2, where the embodiment of Fig. 9A-9G is a more specific example of Fig. 2, see [0023]) that is “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]), where “narrow spectrum visible light” would mean the 400-420 nm radiation from first lighting unit first light source (556, Fig. 9C) and the 400-420 nm and 460-480 nm radiation from second lighting unit first and second light sources (1056 and 1060, Fig. 12A) in cases when the room is vacant and there is no need for white light to be incorporated ([0066]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said emitted light is white light in said first mode (“emit light from the first LEDs 556… and the second LEDs 560, thereby producing a blended or combined output of white visible light discussed above”, Fig. 9D and [0097]).
Regarding claim 4, 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 (“the combined or blended light output by the fixture 1000 is an unobjectionable non-white light having… a curve 109A that is 0.007 Duv above the planckian locus 105 and a curve 109B that is 0.007 Duv below (−0.007 Duv) the planckian locus 105”, [0116] and Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hawkins teaches a sensor for determining occupancy in a space being irradiated by said emitted light (occupancy sensor 108, Fig. 2), and wherein said controller 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… The lighting device 104 may, for example, be partially or entirely controlled by the local controller 120”, [0071-0072] and Fig. 2, where “a control device [is] in the form of a local controller 520 that is identical to the controller 120 described above”, [0090]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said second light source is not powered in said first mode (no mention of second light sources from Fig. 12A-12C embodiment on the Fig. 9A-9G embodiment), wherein said first light source is not powered in said second mode ([0115], where first and second LEDs 1056 and 1060 respectively of second lighting assembly of the Fig. 12A-12C embodiment do not mention the use of the first lighting assembly of the Fig. 9A-9G embodiment, which has white light).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said emitted light is white light in said first mode (“and the second LEDs 560, thereby producing a blended or combined output of white visible light discussed above”, Fig. 9D and [0097]), but fails to explicitly teach white light in second mode.
Hawkins teaches white light in the Fig. 9A-9G embodiment because occupants would view it as “non-objectionable” and “aesthetically pleasing” ([0066]); in simpler terms, the white light is perceived as “normal” for a room filled with occupants.
Furthermore, Hawkins mentions that “having the first LEDs 1056 contribute less power removes some 400 nm to 420 nm disinfecting light from the overall light output by the light fixture 1000, as studies have shown that in some applications, too much 400 nm to 420 nm disinfecting light causes disorientation, headaches, and insomnia for occupants of the environment 100” ([0113]).
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 Hawkins’ second lighting assembly by incorporating the second lighting component of the first lighting assembly (thus making the collective light outputted being white during said second mode) in order to reduce excessive exposure to 420 nm and also provide “non-objectionable” and “aesthetically pleasing” light under room occupancy ([0066] and [0113]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hawkins teaches a controller (520, Fig. 9D) that alternates the mode of emitted light (i.e., first and second modes) based off of the occupancy sensor (“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”, [0071] and Fig. 2, to which “The light fixture 500 can, for example, responsive to data indicating that the environment 100 is occupied… emit light from the first LEDs 556 and the second LEDs 560, thereby producing a blended or combined output of white visible light discussed above”, [0097] and Fig. 9D).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said controller (520, Fig. 9D) selectively powers said plurality of light sources in a kill sequence of said plurality of modes (first and second modes having a plurality of light sources each as described in claim 1 rejection above that can “inactivate microbes”, [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said controller (520, Fig. 9D) selectively powers said plurality of light sources to emit light (first and second modes having a plurality of light sources each as described in claim 1 rejection above that can “inactivate microbes”, [0063]) in at least one more additional mode (“(e.g., a nighttime mode), whereby the second LEDs 560 are powered while the first LEDs 556… are powered at a lower level. Other modes and/or modes corresponding to different power settings or levels may be utilized”, [0095] and Fig. 9D).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said controller (520, Fig. 9D) selectively powers said plurality of light sources in a kill sequence of said first mode, said second mode (first and second modes having a plurality of light sources each as described in claim 1 rejection above that can “inactivate microbes”, [0063]) and said one or more additional modes (the “nighttime” mode as stated in [0095] still inactivates microbes/pathogens because the 400-420 nm radiation from the first light source 556 of the first lighting assembly is still emitted).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hawkins teaches wherein each mode (first mode being white light, occupancy disinfection via 400-420 nm light, second mode being vacant-room disinfection as seen in claim 1 rejection above, and the third mode being nighttime mode as described in claim 10 rejection above) is characterized by a dose of a light having a particular spectral power distribution (SPD) different from the other modes (the spectral power distribution of all three modes are different because the wavelengths and the relative intensities of the wavelengths all differ).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said first light (first lighting assembly of Fig. 9A-9G being an example of lighting device 104 of Fig. 1) has a peak wavelength between 380nm and 420nm ([0065]), 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]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said first light has a peak wavelength of 380 nm, 395 nm or 405 nm (“about 405 nm”, [0065]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said first light has a peak wavelength of 405 nm (“about 405 nm”, [0065]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said emitted light is white light in said first mode (“and the second LEDs 560, thereby producing a blended or combined output of white visible light discussed above”, Fig. 9D and [0097]), but fails to explicitly teach white light as the second light (in the second mode).
Hawkins teaches white light in the Fig. 9A-9G embodiment because occupants would view it as “non-objectionable” and “aesthetically pleasing” ([0066]); in simpler terms, the white light is perceived as “normal” for a room filled with occupants.
Furthermore, Hawkins mentions that “having the first LEDs 1056 contribute less power removes some 400 nm to 420 nm disinfecting light from the overall light output by the light fixture 1000, as studies have shown that in some applications, too much 400 nm to 420 nm disinfecting light causes disorientation, headaches, and insomnia for occupants of the environment 100” ([0113]).
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 Hawkins’ second lighting assembly by incorporating the second lighting component of the first lighting assembly (thus making the collective light outputted being white during said second mode) in order to reduce excessive exposure to 420 nm and also provide “non-objectionable” and “aesthetically pleasing” light under room occupancy ([0066] and [0113]).
In continuation, the second light of second lighting assembly (1060, Fig. 12A) emits blue light having wavelength between 460-480 nm (“the second LEDs 1060 can be configured to provide disinfecting light having a wavelength of between 460 nm to 480 nm”, [0114] and Fig. 12A), but fails to teach wherein said blue power fraction is at least 25% of said overall power.
Modified Hawkins teaches “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]) in regards to the first light of the first lighting assembly (556, Fig. 9D) for the purposes of adequate disinfection (“minimum power density while the lighting device 104 is used for deactivation, thereby ensuring that the environment 100 is adequately disinfected” implies that the lowest spectral energy (e.g., 20% as stated in the same paragraph) is still sufficient enough for adequate disinfection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply this same spectral energy/power distribution standard to a blue light such as the second light of the second lighting assembly of Fig. 12A-12C also for the purposes of adequate disinfection.
Regarding claim 17, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said second light has a peak wavelength of 450 nm and 500 nm (“the second LEDs 1060 can be configured to provide disinfecting light having a wavelength of between 460 nm to 480 nm”, [0114] and Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hawkins teaches wherein said second light has a peak wavelength of 460 nm (“the second LEDs 1060 can be configured to provide disinfecting light having a wavelength of between 460 nm to 480 nm”, [0114] and Fig. 12A, where the wavelength of 460 nm light is within this disclosed range; thus there is sufficient specificity to anticipate this limitation because the disinfecting capability is the same at 460 nm as a range from 460-480 nm).
9. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al. (US 20190083667 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Leanse et al. (provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 10/30/2023).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hawkins teaches a method of using the light system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), said light system comprising;
a plurality of light sources (light fixture 500, Fig. 9C) comprising at least,
a first light source (first light sources 556 and second light sources 560, Fig. 9C) configured for emitting a first light having a first wavelength (wavelengths of 400-420 nm, [0093]); and
a second light source (LEDs 1056 and 1060, Fig. 12A) configured for emitting a second light having a second wavelength, different from said first wavelength (“the second LEDs 1060 can be configured to provide disinfecting light having a wavelength of between 460 nm to 480 nm”, Fig. 12A and [0114]), and
a controller (controller 520, Fig. 9D) for selectively powering said light source in a plurality of modes to emit emitted light from said light system (first mode being “responsive to instructions or commands received from the controller 520, the first LED driver 564 is configured to power the first LEDs 556”, Fig. 9D and [0094], second mode mentioned in [0115]),
said plurality of modes comprises:
at least a first mode (occupancy is detected, [0097]) wherein, in said first mode, at least said first light source is powered (“emit light from the first LEDs 556”, Fig. 9D and [0097]), and
in said second mode, at least said second light source is powered (“this may be achieved by varying the total power provided by the first LEDs 1056 via, for example, a controller”, Fig. 12A and [0112]); and
wherein said emitted light is white light in at least one of said first mode (“and the second LEDs 560, thereby producing a blended or combined output of white visible light discussed above”, Fig. 9D and [0097]), said white light having a chromaticity with Duv of less than 5E- 3 from the Planckian locus (“(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] and see MPEP 2144.05(I))
said method comprising: causing said controller (520, Fig. 9D, with the modified second-mode functionality mentioned in [0115] and [0117]) to emit said emitted light in said plurality of modes ([0097], [0115], and [0117]).
However, modified Hawkins fails to teach a method of using the light system for suppressing a microbe having a photosensitive defense mechanism, where the first light source is suitable for photolyzing or otherwise inactivating the microbe and the second light source is suitable for disrupting 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”, thus now sensitizing MRSA to 405 nm light and significant increase in killing efficiency (2nd paragraph of “Results”).
Modified 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, 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 try applying the dual-wavelength lighting system of modified Hawkins onto MRSA having a photosensitive defense mechanism in order to inactivate significant levels of said microbe (Leanse, abstract) via exposure to 460 nm light to disrupt said microbes’ photosensitive mechanism and exposure to 405 nm light to inactivate the sensitized-microbes (Leanse, 2nd paragraph of “Results”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hawkins in view of Leanse teaches wherein said microbe is MRSA (Hawkins, abstract, and Leanse, abstract) and said photosensitive defense mechanism is a 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 in [0065 and 0093]), and wherein said second mode disrupts said 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 in [0114]), for the modification purposes stated in claim 19 rejection above.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. 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
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799