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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 10/23/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not patentably distinct, since they both depend upon the same structure. This is not found persuasive because it entirely ignores the fact that the restriction is between a process and an apparatus for its process. As explained in the restriction requirement, such inventions are distinct is, as here, the product can be used for a materially different process then that claimed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,617,905. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as is demonstrated by comparison below.
Instant
11,617,905
1. A light disinfection system, comprising:
a lighting system comprising an illumination source and a diffusion hood suitable for the lamination source; and
a disinfection system comprising a disinfection light source and a cover adapted to transmit light from the disinfection light source,
wherein the disinfection light source comprises a disinfection light source chip and
an illumination area of the disinfection light source chip is adjustable by rotating the cover to drive the disinfection light source chip.
1. A lighting disinfection system, comprising:
a system housing comprising two cavities or depressions on a front part of the system house, each cavities or depressions forming one of a light system housing and a disinfection system housing;
a lighting system comprising an illumination source placed inside the light system housing, and a diffusion hood covering the illumination source;
a disinfection system comprising a disinfection light source placed inside the disinfection system housing and a cover covering the disinfection light source, wherein the cover is capable of transmitting 80% or more disinfection light generated by the disinfection light source,
wherein the cover of the disinfection light source and the diffusion hood of the illumination source are both situated by the front part of the system housing to allow a illumination light and a disinfection light to irradiate from the front part of the system housing,
wherein an orientation of the disinfection light source is adjustable relative to an orientation of the illumination source and an illumination area of the disinfection light source is adjusted by rotating the disinfection light source,
wherein the system housing comprises a bottom part, the front part and two ends in a longitudinal direction of the bottom part and the front part, connecting the bottom part and front part, forming an internal space, wherein the two cavities or depressions on the front part of the system housing extend between the two ends in the longitudinal direction of the internal space, forming the light system housing and the disinfection system housing to house the lighting system and the disinfection system between the two ends in the longitudinal direction of the internal space respectively,
wherein the front part of the system housing forms an inward depression near the lighting system, creating a slot between the two ends to form the disinfection system housing,
wherein the disinfection light source comprises a disinfection light source chip that is mounted inside the disinfection system housing, and
wherein the cover comprises a hollow cylinder rotatably disposed within the slot, and
an illumination area of the disinfection light source is adjusted by rotating the cover to drive the disinfection light source chip to rotate for an angle.
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-11 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 1 recites “a diffusion hood suitable for the lamination source.” There are two problems with this limitation. First, there is no antecedent basis for “the lamination source.” Second, it is unclear how one is to determine whether a particular diffusion hood is suitable for any particular purpose. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite. The limitation will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
Claim 8 recites, “the angle being formed between the disinfection light source and the illumination source.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the angle” in the claims. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites, “the slot.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the slot” in the claims. The claim will be examined as though it depended upon claim 5.
It has been found that UV, violet or blue light can have disinfection and sterilization functions, such as inactivating pathogens on surfaces, air or water. A pathogen refers to any microscopic organism, including bacteria, viruses, spores, and fungi, capable of causing disease or infection in humans. Inactivation includes killing the pathogen, rendering it unable or unable to replicate, or rendering it unable to infect humans. Ultraviolet light (UV) refers to light with wavelengths in the range of 100 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm; the four sub-ranges of the UV range include vacuum UV from 100 to 200 nm; UVC from 200 to 280 nanometers; UVB from 280 to 315 nanometers; and UVA from 315 to 400 nm. The wavelength of violet light is about 400 to about 450 nm; the wavelength of blue light is about 450 to about 490 nm.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
PNG
media_image1.png
45
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1:
Park teaches a lighting disinfection system (para 1), comprising:
a lighting system comprising an illumination source (Fig. 2 (11)) and a diffusion hood suitable for the illumination source (Fig. 2 (143)); and
a disinfection system comprising a disinfection light source (Fig. 2 (12)) and a cover adapted to transmit light from the disinfection light source (Fig. 2 (14), paras 56-58),
wherein the disinfection light source comprises a disinfection light source chip (para 52, a UV LED is considered a light source chip).
However, Park fails to teach that an illumination area of the disinfection light source chip is adjustable by rotating the cover to drive the disinfection light source chip.
Poulsen is directed to a UV disinfection system (abstract) wherein an illumination area of the disinfection light source is adjustable by rotating the cover to drive the disinfection light source to a new position (Fig. 3, paras 17, 18, 30, 35, 46, et al.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify Park in view of Poulsen such that the body and cover of Poulsen were rotatable. One would have been motivated to do so in order to extend the area irradiated by disinfecting radiation.
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the light disinfection system of claim 1, further comprising:
a housing for accommodating the lighting system and the disinfection system (Park Fig. 12) and comprising a bottom part, a front part and two ends in a longitudinal direction, forming an internal space (as shown in Park Fig. 12), wherein the lighting system and the disinfection system extend between the two ends respectively (as shown in Fig. 1, both the lighting system and the disinfection system extend along the longitudinal direction, and any number of other directions), and are mounted within the internal space in parallel (the lights of the lighting system and the disinfection system are shown in Park Fig. 1 to be arranged in parallel by any number of arbitrary direction based on various dimensions of the lighting system and the disinfection system).
Claims 3, 4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
PNG
media_image2.png
79
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the light disinfection system of claim 2, wherein the diffusion hood is mounted on an opening in front of the illumination source chip of the front part of the housing. Park Fig. 2 (143).
However, the modified invention fails to teach that the illumination source comprises a metal core printed circuit board mounted inside the housing; and an illumination source chip mounted on the metal core printed circuit board.
Hayashi teaches a UV radiation device comprising LEDs (abstract), wherein the LEDs are mounted on a metal core printed circuit board in order to effectively transfer heat away from the light source (para 194). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to implement the teaching of Hayashi in the above modified invention, and mount all of the LEDs on metal core printed circuit boards. One would have been motivated to do so in order to better control the heat of the LEDs and thus keep them at their ideal operating temperatures. Hayashi para 194.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the light disinfection system of claim 3, wherein the illumination source chip comprises a plurality of illumination source chips (Park Fig. 2 (11)) disposed on the metal core printed circuit board in intervals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to implement the teaching of Hayashi in the above modified invention, and mount all of the LEDs on metal core printed circuit boards. One would have been motivated to do so in order to better control the heat of the LEDs and thus keep them at their ideal operating temperatures. Hayashi para 194.
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention teaches the light disinfection system of claim 3, wherein an angle being formed between the disinfection light source and the illumination source (such an angle is evident in Park Fig. 1), wherein the disinfection light and the illumination source are mounted adjacently (as shown in Park Fig. 1) have a substantially coincident illumination range on an illumination face (at a sufficiently distant point, the illumination range of the disinfection light and the illumination source will by substantially the same because the relative distance between the sources will be insignificant.).
Regarding Claim 9:
The above modified invention teaches the light disinfection system of claim 8, wherein the disinfection light source comprises a UV light source (Park para 50)and the illumination light source comprises a white light source (Park para 49).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,007,292 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881