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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the air sterilizing unit 100 of Matsui does not have a corresponding beam angle since light is not emitted therefrom. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Matsui discloses “deep ultraviolet luminous flux emitted from ultraviolet light emitting device” (paragraph 55). This light beam is explicitly stated to have ‘strengthened directivity’ (Matsui claim 1), which is another way of saying that it has a narrowed beam angle, and is emitted from the light source module towards the interior of the air sterilizing unit (Matsui claim 1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 regarding new limitation “the light guide housing guides the sterilizing light such that a beam angle of sterilizing light emitted from the light source module is narrower than a beam angle of the light source” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that FIG. 1 of Leach shows a system 10 for neutralizing airborne microorganisms, which is implemented within a ventilation system. See, e.g., paragraph 0059. As should be readily known, air flowing out the air outlet 30 is directed into a sensitive environment, e.g., by further ducts within the overall ventilation system in which the system 10 is installed. FIG. 1 of Leach is not intended to show that the air flowing out the air outlet 30 passes by the heat exchanger 34. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the claim language requires air flowing out the air outlet to pass by the hear exchange, the claim merely says that the sterilization area is between the air inlet and the heat exchanger, which is shown by Leach’s disclosure that the sterilization area 26 is inside the conditioning section 12 and the heat exchanger 34 is located externally to the conditioning section (Leach paragraph 64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 2015/0250913 A1) in view of Carter et al. (US 2014/0263091 A1) and Bigelow (US 6500387 B1).
With respect to claim 1: Matsui teaches “a light source module (100) comprising: at least one light source (130, 130a) emitting sterilizing light in a wavelength band capable of sterilizing pollutants (paragraph 33); a substrate (131, 131a) on which a light source of the at least one light source is mounted (see Fig. 4), and a light guide (124+141b+lens described in paragraph 33) guiding a traveling direction of the sterilizing light (32) emitted from the light source (see Fig. 4, paragraph 33), wherein the light guide comprises a housing (120) including a first housing (124) and a second housing (141b) directly connected to each other (see Fig. 4), wherein a connection between an end of the first housing and an end of the second housing forms an acute angle (see Fig. 4), wherein the light guide guides the sterilizing light such that a beam angle of the sterilizing light emitted from the light source module is narrower than a beam angle of the light source (paragraph 33)”.
Matsui does not explicitly teach “the substrate being electrically connected to the light source”.
However, Carter teaches a light source module (10) with light sources (14) that are electrically connected (paragraph 49) to a substrate (16).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light source module of Matsui by electrically connecting the light sources to the substrate as taught by Carter in order to provide power and control to each LED (Carter paragraph 49).
Matsui does not specifically teach that it is the light guide housing that narrows the beam angle of the sterilizing light.
However, Bigelow teaches a light source module including a light guide housing 26 that narrows the beam angle of the sterilizing light (column 12 lines 11-39).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light source module of Matsui by using the light guide housing to narrow the beam angle as taught by Matsui in order to enhance the UV radiation (Bigelow column 8 lines 33-35).
With respect to claim 2: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow teaches “The light source module according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “the substrate is disposed on one of the first housing or the second housing (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 3: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigwlow teaches “The light source module according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “wherein the light source is disposed on an inner surface of the housing (see Fig. 4), the inner surface of the housing being one surface of the first housing or one surface of the second housing (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 4: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow teaches “The light source module according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “wherein a width of the first housing is different from a width of the second housing (see Fig. 4), the width of the first housing being a length from the end of the first housing connected to the second housing to the other end thereof, the width of the second housing being a length from the end of the second housing connected to the first housing to the other end thereof (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 9: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow teaches “the light source module according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “wherein: the light guide comprises a cavity (see Fig. 4) open at an upper side thereof (opening=101); an inner wall of the light guide defining the cavity is an inclined surface (141b); and the light source is mounted on the cavity (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 11: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow teaches “the light source module according to claim 9 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “wherein the cavity surrounds a side surface of the light source (see Fig. 4)”.
Claims 5-8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caffrey (US 2018/0361007 A1).
With respect to claim 5: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow teaches “the light source module according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “wherein the light guide further comprises: a lens portion disposed on the light source and covering the light source (paragraph 33)”.
Matsui does not specifically teach “a cover portion connected to the lens portion and covering surroundings of the light source”.
However, Caffrey teaches a lens portion (124) disposed on the light source (120) and covering the light source (see Figs. 3, 5); and a cover portion (122) connected to the lens portion and covering surroundings of the light source (see Fig. 5)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light source module of Matsui with the cover portion taught by Caffrey in order to further direct emitted light in a desired direction (Caffrey paragraph 32).
With respect to claim 6: Matsui in view of Carter, Bigelow and Caffrey teaches “the light source module according to claim 5 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “wherein the lens portion is formed of a material allowing transmission of the sterilizing light there through (paragraph 33)”.
With respect to claim 7: Matsui in view of Carter, Bigelow and Caffrey teaches “the light source module according to claim 5 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “wherein the lens portion is disposed on the housing (see paragraph 33 and Fig. 4)”.
Matsui does not specifically teach “wherein the cover portion is disposed on the housing”.
However, Caffrey teaches “wherein the cover portion is disposed (see Fig. 3) on the housing (114)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light source module of Matsui with the cover portion taught by Caffrey in order to further direct emitted light in a desired direction (Caffrey paragraph 32).
With respect to claim 8: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow teaches “the light source module according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “the inner surface of the housing is one surface of the first housing and one surface of the second housing connected to each other to form the acute angle there between (see Fig. 4)”.
Matsui does not specifically teach “wherein the light source is disposed on an outer surface of the housing, the outer surface of the housing being an opposite surface to an inner surface of the housing”.
However, Caffrey teaches “wherein the light source is disposed on an outer surface of the housing (see Fig. 6), the outer surface of the housing being an opposite surface to an inner surface of the housing (inner surface forming angle between 146 and 128)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light source module of Matsui with the housing taught by Caffrey due to the art recognized suitability of such a housing to house the light source and associated circuits and batteries and to mount to a desired location, such as in an air duct (Caffrey paragraph 32).
With respect to claim 12: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow teaches “the light source module according to claim 11 (see above)”.
Matsui further teaches “the inner surface of the housing is one surface of the first housing and one surface of the second housing connected to each other to form the acute angle there between (see Fig. 4)”.
Matsui does not specifically teach “wherein the light source is disposed on an outer surface of the housing, the outer surface of the housing being an opposite surface to an inner surface of the housing”.
However, Caffrey teaches “wherein the light source is disposed on an outer surface of the housing (see Fig. 5), the outer surface of the housing being an opposite surface to an inner surface (surface formed by angle between 146 and 128) of the housing (see Fig. 6)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light source module of Matsui with the housing taught by Caffrey due to the art recognized suitability of such a housing to house the light source and associated circuits and batteries and to mount to a desired location, such as in an air duct (Caffrey paragraph 32).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow as applied to claims 1, 9 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20070126020 A1).
With respect to claim 10: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow teaches “the light source module according to claim 9 (see above)”.
Matsui does not specifically teach “a sealing portion sealing the cavity of the light guide and formed of a material allowing transmission of the sterilizing light there through”.
However, Lin teaches “a sealing portion (130) sealing the cavity (see Fig. 2a) of the light guide (110) and formed of a material allowing transmission of the sterilizing light there through (paragraph 25)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light source module of Matsui with the sealing portion of Lin in order to protect the light source (Lin paragraph 28)”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nam (KR 20150122019 A).
Note: Paragraph citations to Nam refer to the previously provided English translation.
With respect to claim 13: Matsui in view of Carter and Bigelow teaches “The light source module according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Matsui does not specifically teach “further comprising: a sensor unit detecting a pollution level of a sterilization target or detecting a timing of emitting sterilizing light”.
However, Nam teaches “a sensor unit (130) detecting a pollution level of a sterilization target or detecting a timing of emitting sterilizing light (paragraphs 26-27)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light source module of Matsui with the sensor of Nam in order to turn the light source module off at appropriate times to prevent harm to people (Nam paragraph 26).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach et al. (US 2015/0250913 A1) in view of Matsui, Carter, and Bigelow.
With respect to claim 14: Leach teaches “an air conditioner (10) comprising: an air inlet (14) through which air is introduced into the air conditioner (see Fig. 1); an air outlet (30) through which the air is discharged from the air conditioner (see Fig. 1); an air circulator guiding the air to flow in a direction from the air inlet to the air outlet (40); a heat exchanger performing heat exchange with the air (34); and at least one light source module (28a, 28b, 28c) emitting sterilizing light in a wavelength band capable of sterilizing pollutants (paragraph 63) towards a sterilization area (26) between the air inlet and the heat exchanger (see Fig. 1), the light source module of the at least one light source module comprising: at least one light source emitting the sterilizing light (paragraph 63)”.
Leach does not specifically teach “a substrate on which a light source of the at least one light source module is mounted, and wherein the light guide comprises a housing including a first housing and a second housing directly connected to each other, wherein a connection between an end of the first housing and an end of the second housing forms an acute angle, wherein the light guide guides the sterilizing light to be delivered to the sterilization area such that a beam angle of the light source module becomes narrower than a beam angle of the light source”.
However, Matsui teaches “a substrate (130a) on which the light source is mounted (131a), and a light guide guiding a traveling direction of the sterilizing light emitted from the light source (124+141b+lens described in paragraph 33), wherein the light guide comprises a housing including a first housing (124) and a second housing (141b) directly connected to each other (see Fig. 4), wherein a connection between an end of the first housing and an end of the second housing forms an acute angle (see Fig. 4) wherein the light guide guides the sterilizing light to be delivered to the sterilization area (see Fig. 4) such that a beam angle of the light source module becomes narrower than a beam angle of the light source (paragraph 33)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach with the light source and light guide structure of Matsui in order to maximize the efficiency of the sterilization effect of the light source (Matsui paragraph 21).
Leach does not specifically teach that the substrate is electrically connected to the light source.
However, Carter teaches a light source module (10) with light sources (14) that are electrically connected (paragraph 49) to a substrate (16).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach by electrically connecting the light sources to the substrate as taught by Carter in order to provide power and control to each LED (Carter paragraph 49).
Leach does not specifically teach that it is a light guide housing that narrows the beam angle of the sterilizing light.
However, Bigelow teaches a light source module including a light guide housing 26 that narrows the beam angle of the sterilizing light (column 12 lines 11-39).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach by using the light guide housing to narrow the beam angle as taught by Matsui in order to enhance the UV radiation (Bigelow column 8 lines 33-35).
With respect to claim 15: Leach in view of Matsui, Carter, and Bigelow teaches “The air conditioner according to claim 14 (see above)”.
Leach does not specifically teach “the substrate is disposed on one of the first housing or the second housing”.
However, Matsui teaches “the substrate is disposed on one of the first housing or the second housing (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach with the light source and light guide structure of Matsui in order to maximize the efficiency of the sterilization effect of the light source (Matsui paragraph 21).
With respect to claim 16: Leach in view of Matsui, Carter, and Bigelow teaches “The air conditioner according to claim 14 (see above)”.
Leach does not specifically teach “wherein the light source is disposed on an inner surface of the housing, the inner surface of the housing being one surface of the first housing or one surface of the second housing”.
However, Matsui teaches “wherein the light source is disposed on an inner surface of the housing, the inner surface of the housing being one surface of the first housing or one surface of the second housing (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach with the light source and light guide structure of Matsui in order to maximize the efficiency of the sterilization effect of the light source (Matsui paragraph 21).
With respect to claim 17: Leach in view of Matsui, Carter, and Bigelow teaches “The air conditioner according to claim 14 (see above)”.
Leach does not specifically teach “wherein a width of the first housing is different from a width of the second housing, the width of the first housing being a length from the end of the first housing connected to the second housing to the other end thereof, the width of the second housing being a length from the end of the second housing connected to the first housing to the other end thereof”.
However, Matsui teaches “wherein a width of the first housing is different from a width of the second housing (see Fig. 4), the width of the first housing being a length from the end of the first housing connected to the second housing to the other end thereof, the width of the second housing being a length from the end of the second housing connected to the first housing to the other end thereof (see Fig. 4)”.It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach with the light source and light guide structure of Nam in order to maximize the sterilization effect of the light source (Nam paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach with the light source and light guide structure of Matsui in order to maximize the efficiency of the sterilization effect of the light source (Matsui paragraph 21).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach in view of Matsui, Carter, and Bigelow as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Caffrey.
With respect to claim 18: Leach in view of Matsui, Carter, and Bigelow teaches “The air conditioner according to claim 14 (see above)”.
Leach does not specifically teach “wherein the light guide comprises: a lens portion disposed on the light source and covering the light source; and a cover portion connected to the lens portion and covering surroundings of the light source”.
However, Caffrey teaches “wherein the light guide comprises: a lens portion (124) disposed on the light source (120) and covering the light source (see Figs. 3, 5); and a cover portion (122) connected to the lens portion and covering surroundings of the light source (see Fig. 5)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach with the lens and cover portions taught by Caffrey in order to further direct emitted light in a desired direction (Caffrey paragraph 32).
With respect to claim 19: Leach in view of Matsui, Carter, and Bigelow teaches “The air conditioner according to claim 18 (see above)”.
Leach does not specifically teach “wherein the lens portion is formed of a material allowing transmission of the sterilizing light there through”.
Caffrey further teaches “wherein the lens portion is formed of a material allowing transmission of the sterilizing light there through (paragraph 32)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach with the lens and cover portions taught by Caffrey in order to further direct emitted light in a desired direction (Caffrey paragraph 32).
With respect to claim 20: Leach in view of Matsui, Carter, and Bigelow teaches “The air conditioner according to claim 18 (see above)”.
Leach does not specifically teach “wherein the lens portion and cover portion are disposed on the housing”.
However, Caffrey teaches “wherein the lens portion and cover portion are disposed (see Fig. 3) on the housing (114)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioner of Leach with the lens and cover portions taught by Caffrey in order to further direct emitted light in a desired direction (Caffrey paragraph 32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
New et al. (US 20070053188 A1), which teaches a UV sanitation fixture.
Boodaghians et al. (US 20150129776 A1), which teaches a UV water treatment fixture.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights