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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,886,348 [Schmertz].
Regarding Claim 1:
Schmertz discloses an optical disc unit for an ultraviolet sterilizer, which is applied to the ultraviolet sterilizer including an ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) to reflect light irradiated from the ultraviolet LED (the preceding preamble limitation is understood to describe the intended use of the optical disc unit, and to not actually require a UV LED. This is consistent with instant claim 9, which depends from this claim and adds such an element with a positive limitation), the optical disc unit comprising:
a body portion including a hollow (Figs. 1 and 2 (17))); and
a primary optical unit (Fig. 2 (38,41)) fixedly coupled to an internal diameter surface in the hollow of the body portion (3:17-23) and disposed in a direction perpendicular to an emission surface of the ultraviolet LED to reflect the light irradiated from the ultraviolet LED therethrough (as shown in Fig. 2);
a first internal diameter surface perpendicular to the emission surface (the apex portion of (17) near ref (26) is perpendicular to the emissions surface); and
a second internal diameter surface extending from the first internal diameter surface and formed to be inclined with a predetermined angle in a direction of an external diameter surface of the body portion along an upward direction of the body portion (Fig. 2 (23)).
Regarding Claim 2:
Schmertz discloses the optical disc unit of claim 1, wherein the primary optical unit includes:
a first reflection portion disposed adjacent to the ultraviolet LED (Fig. 2 (38)), wherein a length of an external circumference in the first reflection portion increases upwards from the ultraviolet LED in a direction in which the light is irradiated (as shown in Fig. 2 (38)); and
a second reflection portion extending from the first reflection portion (Fig. 2 (41) on the right), wherein a length of an external circumference in the second reflection portion reduces upwards from the first reflection portion (as shown in Fig. 2 (41)).
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 1-4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0213835 A1 [Mo].
Regarding Claim 1:
Mo discloses an optical disc unit for an ultraviolet sterilizer, which is applied to the ultraviolet sterilizer including an ultraviolet light emitting diode (LED) to reflect light irradiated from the ultraviolet LED (the preceding preamble limitation is understood to describe the intended use of the optical disc unit, and to not actually require a UV LED. This is consistent with claim 9, which depends from this claim and adds such an element using a positive limitation), the optical disc unit comprising:
a body portion including a hollow (note the space defined by bulb in Fig. 8e below); and
a primary optical unit (Fig. 8e (810)) fixedly coupled to an internal diameter surface in the hollow of the body portion (para 62 – “mounted on a sidewall”) and disposed in a direction perpendicular to an emission surface of the ultraviolet LED to reflect the light irradiated from the ultraviolet LED therethrough (as shown in Fig. 8e, element (810) extends in a direction of irradiation, i.e. a direction perpendicular to an emission surface).
a first internal diameter surface perpendicular to the emission surface (see e.g., area A in annotated Fig. 8e below), and
a second internal diameter surface extending from the first internal diameter surface and formed to be inclined with a predetermined angle in a direction of an external diameter surface of the body portion along an upward direction of the body portion (see e.g., area B in annotated Fig. 8e below).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Mo does not specify that internal surface (B) is linearly inclined. Changing the shape of the outer bulb to have linear section, such that it would be “linearly inclined” would not change the effect of the device in any conceivable way. In fact, upon close inspection, there are numerous sections of Fig. 8E near area B that could already be considered “linear.” As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to slightly flatten the shape of section B of Mo such that it was “linearly inclined.” One of ordinary skill would have this found obvious because there is no evidence that a “linearly inclined” surface performs any significant or particular function that is not likewise performed by the very similar shape taught by Mo.
Regarding Claim 2:
Mo teaches the optical disc unit of claim 1, wherein the primary optical unit includes:
a first reflection portion disposed adjacent to the ultraviolet LED (Fig. 8e (810) on the left), wherein a length of an external circumference in the first reflection portion increases upwards from the ultraviolet LED in a direction in which the light is irradiated (as shown in Fig. 8e (810) on the left); and
a second reflection portion extending from the first reflection portion (Fig. 8e (810) on the right), wherein a length of an external circumference in the second reflection portion reduces upwards from the first reflection portion (as shown in Fig. 8e (810) on the right).
Regarding Claim 3:
Mo teaches the optical disc unit of claim 2, but fails to specify that the first reflection portion and the second reflection portion include a shape of cone.
However, Mo does teach that other shapes, such as cones may be used. Para 58.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify the shape of the reflectors of Mo in the fashion suggested by Mo so as to arrive at reflectors having a cone shape. One would have been motivated to do so since Mo suggests doing so to achieve any desired pattern. Para 49.
Regarding Claim 4:
Mo teaches the optical disc unit of claim 2, but does not specify that the first reflection portion and the second reflection portion include a shape of a polygonal pyramid.
However, Mo does teach that other shapes, such as pyramidal or multi-faceted reflectors may be used. Para 49.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify the shape of the reflectors of Mo in the fashion suggested by Mo so as to arrive at reflectors having a polygonal pyramid shape. One would have been motivated to do so since Mo suggests doing so to achieve any desired pattern. Para 49.
Regarding Claim 6:
Mo teaches the optical disc unit of claim 1, wherein an interface between a first reflection portion and a second reflection portion is formed upwards from an interface between the first internal diameter surface and the second internal diameter surface with respect to the direction in which light is irradiated from the ultraviolet LED. As can be seen in annotated Fig. 8e above, the interface between the two convex reflective shapes is farther away from the emitter than the interface between the tube surfaces.
Regarding Claim 7:
Mo teaches the optical disc unit of claim 6, wherein the light irradiated from the ultraviolet LED and reflected by the first reflection portion (as shown in Figs. 8b and 8e) is reflected by the second internal diameter surface. Para 53 explains that the tube is made of glass. Light incident on glass will inherently experience some reflection as it interacts with a glass surface.
Regarding Claim 8:
Mo teaches the optical disc unit of claim 5, wherein a material of the optical disc unit is one of polycarbonate (PC), nylon, and an Al metal material. Para 52.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0177354 A1 [Grimm] in view of Schmertz.
Regarding Claim 9:
Grimm teaches an ultraviolet sterilizer (para 24) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1a (3));
a substrate provided in the housing (that portion of (3) behind LED (4)); and
the ultraviolet LED mounted on the substrate (Fig. 1a (4)).
However, Grimm fails to teach the optical disc unit of claim 1 mounted onto the substrate and arranged such that the LED is disposed in the hollow of the optical disc unit.
Schmertz teaches the optical disc unit of claim 5. Mounting the housing and LED of Grimm Fig. 1a onto the focusing arrangement of Schmertz Fig. 2 would allow one to focus the UV light of Grimm in a desired fashion without the absorption of light that arises with the use of traditional lenses. Schmertz abstract. This would also entail placing the LED into the hollow the optical disc unit so that it could transmit light into the unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the lens of Grimm with the focusing arrangement of Schmertz Fig. 2 in the fashion described above. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow one to focus the UV light of Grimm in a desired fashion without the absorption of light that arises with the use of traditional lenses.
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the ultraviolet sterilizer of claim 9, wherein an interface between the first internal diameter surface and the second internal diameter surface is formed upwards from the ultraviolet LED with respect to a direction in which the light from the ultraviolet LED is irradiated. As shown in Schmertz Fig. 2 by the arrows therein.
Regarding Claim 11:
The above modified invention teaches the ultraviolet sterilizer of claim 10, but fails to teach that an interface between the first reflection portion and the second reflection portion is formed upwards from the interface between the first internal diameter surface and the second internal diameter surface with respect to the direction in which the light from the ultraviolet LED is irradiated.
Optimizing the position of the reflector’s interface with respect to the surface’s interface is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Schmertz teaches that the mirror arrangement of Fig. 2 acts to transmit and focus light as a lens. 2:62-4:48. Further, Schmertz explains that the shapes and positions of the surfaces affect the focal point, thus identifying these shapes and positions as variable which achieve recognized results. See Schmertz 4:21-28. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the shape and position of the reflectors to change the focal point. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the shape of the Schmertz’s reflectors to place the interface between the internal reflector surfaces upward from the interface of the external reflector surfaces since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 12:
The above modified invention teaches the ultraviolet sterilizer of claim 11, wherein the light irradiated from the ultraviolet LED and reflected by the first reflection portion is reflected by the second internal diameter surface. As shown in Schmertz Fig. 2 by the arrows therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the internal surface of the body portion is “formed to be linearly inclined with a predetermined angle.” There word “linearly” is not used anywhere in the original disclosure. Applicant asserts that surface 112 can be seen “linearly extending” in Fig. 3. An expanded view of Fig. 3 is provided below. Presumably, applicant is using the term “linearly” to indicate that the line is straight, as that is its common usage. Upon close inspection, there is nothing particularly straight about surface (112). Rather, the image seems to show a roughly beveled corner. It is not evident that this bevel is linear in any particular sense of the word. As such, the limitation “linearly inclined” in deemed to be new matter, and the claims are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
PNG
media_image2.png
936
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach an internal diameter surface formed to be “linearly inclined.” This is not persuasive.
First, the applicant relies entirely on a drawing to find written description support for a “linearly inclined” surface. Whether the drawing actually shows such a linearly inclined surface is unclear, and it is not evident at all that such a surface was possessed at the time of the invention.
Next, it is noted that the applicant’s attorney asserts that “it is not possible to determine and focus the investigation area in precision” using a curved surface. Counsel's assertion above is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 2129, 2144.03, 716.01. Furthermore, this assertion is entirely untrue. The field of optics is well understood, and the optical effects of surfaces, both curved and flat, can be described using rudimentary optics models. In fact, the applicant’s invention has numerous curved surfaces, including the one at issue, as can be seen in Fig. 4, wherein the surface (112) is shown to be circular.
Finally, it is noted that slightly flattening a prior art surface to achieve some degree of “linearly increasing” is of such a simple nature that it immediately apparent to anyone of ordinary skill in the art. As such, to the extent that the prior art of record does not teach the “linearly increasing” surface, it is completely obvious in view of a slightly curved increasing surface.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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. 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, 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