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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 12/29/2025 have been entered. Claims 7-13 have been added. Claims 1-13 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to limitations added by way of amendment which were not present at the time of the Non-Final Office Action dated 08/28/2025, hereinafter NFOA0828.
However, for clarity of the record, Examiner will address relevant arguments presented by Applicant.
Applicant argues that the prior art documents Mima, Kanehata, and Miwata each fail to disclose the limitation “the partition is directly connected to the blower”. Examiner agrees, but again notes that this limitation was added herein by way of amendment and was not present at the time of NFOA0828.
Applicant additionally argues that Mima teaches away from this feature. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Mima is merely silent with respect to such a limitation. Applicant argues that Mimi teaches away from this feature because “directly connecting the driving unit 10 (30) to the blower unit 12 (32) leads to reducing the effectiveness of cooling the driving unit 10 (30), in contrary to Mima’s intention.” Applicant further argues that “in the case that the driving unit 10 (30) were directly connected to the blower unit 12 (32), the airflow generated by the blower unit 12 (32) would be less likely to flow upward beyond the connection portion between the driving unit and the blower unit.” and that “such a configuration would reduce the effectiveness of cooling the area above the connection portion.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that at no point in the disclosure of Mima, does the author indicate that the blower and driving unit being spatially separated is critical to the operation of the device or the cooling effectiveness of the driving unit. Applicant’s assertion that any reduced effectiveness would result from direct connection of some part of the blower to some part of the driving unit is speculative, as such a potential direct connection could be achieved in numerous ways. There is no evidentiary basis for such an assertion, and as such this argument is not convincing. Nevertheless, Mima does not explicitly teach the limitation.
Applicant similarly argues that the prior art Kanehata teaches away from the limitation “the partition is directly connected to the blower”. Examiner agrees, as connecting the cooling fan 4 directly to the heat sink 34 would change the principle of operation of the device of Kanehata.
In Kanehata, the cooling air is directed to one end of the cooling fins 35 of the heat sink 34 via air guide plate 5, and Kanehata explicitly discloses doing so in order to ensure the cooling air contacts the entire length of the cooling fins/heat sink en route to the air outlet. Were the cooling fan directly connected to the heat sink/cooling fins, this principle of operation would not occur. While the technical effect of such a modification is unclear, as the width of the cooling fan/cooling air flow is shown to be of similar scale to the width of the heat sink/cooling fans, it would nevertheless change the principle of operation, and thus such a modification cannot be considered obvious absent additional prior art instruction which is not present in Kanehata itself. Accordingly, Examiner agrees that Kanehata teaches away from a modification disposing the cooling fan to be directly connected to the heat sink/cooling fins.
Applicant argues that the prior art Miwata does not disclose the wind shielding member 20 being directly connected to the blower 14. Examiner agrees, however, Applicant’s argument that an outlet 17 is disposed between shielding member 20 and blower 14 is not convincing, as this could be true with a direct connection between the blower and the shielding member.
Applicant similarly argues that Miwata teaches away from the limitation “the partition is directly connected to the blower”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that a direct connection between the shielding member 20 and the blower 14 “leads to the complication of the structure of the light irradiation device and enlargement of the overall size of the device, in contrary to Miwata’s intention”, because “Miwata intends to simplify the structure of the light irradiation device and to avoid increasing the overall size of the device”. Examiner disagrees, as a direct connection between the shielding member 20 and the blower 14 would not necessarily complicate the structure or enlarge the overall size of the device. Such an assertion is speculative and not supported by any evidentiary basis. In fact, Miwata discloses the power source of the blower inside the wind shielding member, indicating that coupling such elements would not require enlarging or complicating the device. Furthermore, Applicant argues that such a direct connection would require providing the blower inside the housing. Such an assertion is speculative and not supported by any evidentiary basis. In fact, as can be seen in the arrangement shown in Miwata’s Fig. 5, the blower and shielding member could be directly connected without changing the relative positioning of either part, and without any resultant enlargement of the device. No repositioning of the blower into the housing would be necessary to achieve such a direct connection, as the two elements are disposed proximate to one another at an end of the housing where an opening in the housing already exists, and could readily be connected through the outlet or through the wall of the housing. Accordingly, the argument that Miwata teaches away is not convincing. Nevertheless, Miwata does not explicitly teach the limitation.
See below for detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
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 1-2, 4-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mima (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019181937 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mima teaches a light irradiator ([0001]; [0007]), comprising:
a light source including a plurality of light-emitting elements ([0014]);
a heat sink thermally coupled to the light source ([0014]);
a blower for blowing toward the heat sink ([0014]);
a housing accommodating the light source, the blower, and the heat sink, the housing having an outlet and an inlet (See Figs. 2-3; [0014]-[0015]); and
a partition in the housing, the partition dividing an internal space of the housing into an air blowing space between the blower and the heat sink and a remaining space excluding the air blowing space (See Figs. 3, item 22e, dividing space between blower and heat sink and remaining space),
Mima does not teach wherein the partition is directly connected to the blower.
In other words, Mima discloses the claimed invention except for the partition being directly connected to the blower.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mima to include wherein the partition is directly connected to the blower since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950).
Doing so amounts to a mere rearrangement of parts and would allow one to further control the air flow to the heat sink.
Regarding claim 2, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Mima further teaches wherein
the housing includes
a bottom surface facing an emission direction of light from the light source and including a light emission window (See Figs. 3, items 22a and 23; [0040]-[0044]),
a top surface opposite to the bottom surface and adjacent to the blower, the top surface having the inlet (See Figs. 3, items 22c, 22d, and 32; [0040]-[0044]),
a first side wall having the outlet and being connected to the bottom surface and the top surface (See Figs. 3, items 22b (right side), 24(24b); [0040]-[0044]),
a second side wall extending between a first edge of the bottom surface and a second edge of the top surface, the second edge being opposite to the first edge of the bottom surface (See Figs. 3, item 22b (left side)),
a third side wall connected to the bottom surface, the top surface, and the second side wall (See Figs. 1-3, one of the lateral side walls connected to 22a, 22b, and 22c/22d), and
a fourth side wall opposite to the third side wall and connected to the bottom surface, the top surface, and the second side wall (See Figs. 1-3, one of the lateral side walls connected to 22a, 22b, and 22c/22d, that is opposite to the third side wall).
Regarding claim 4, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 2.
Mima further teaches further comprising:
a guide located on the (See Figs. 3, item 22e; [0040]-[0044]).
Mima does not explicitly teach a guide located on the second side wall to guide an airflow from the blower to the air blowing space toward the heat sink (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, Mima discloses the claimed invention except for the guide being on the second wall (Mima discloses on the top surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mima to include a guide located on the second side wall to guide an airflow from the blower to the air blowing space toward the heat sink (Emphasis added by Examiner), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 5, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 2.
Mima further teaches further comprising:
a drive board located along the second side wall to drive the light source and the blower (See Figs. 3, item 30; [0040]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 6, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Mima further teaches wherein
the blower includes an axial fan including blades rotatable about a central axis extending toward the heat sink ([0034]-[0037]; [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Mima further teaches wherein
the outlet is adjacent to the heat sink (See Figs. 3, items 29 and 24(24b)), and
the inlet is adjacent to the blower (See Figs. 3, items 24(24a) and 32).
Regarding claim 8, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Mima further teaches wherein
the partition is adjacent to the heat sink (See Figs. 3, items 22e and 29).
Regarding claim 10, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Mima further teaches wherein
the partition includes a first wall (See Figs. 3, item 22e),
a second wall extending from the first wall in a first direction crossing the first wall (See Figs. 3, item 22d extending from 22e), and
a (See Figs. 3, item 26).
Mima does not explicitly teach a pair of mounting pieces extending from the second wall in a second direction crossing the first direction (Emphasis added by Examiner).
In other words, Mima discloses the claimed invention except for the number of mounting pieces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mima to explicitly include a pair of mounting pieces extending from the second wall in a second direction crossing the first direction (Emphasis added by Examiner), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 11, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 10.
Mima does not teach wherein the blower is attached to the pair of mounting pieces.
However, Mima, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the blower being attached to the mounting pieces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mima to include wherein the blower is attached to the pair of mounting pieces, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 12, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 11.
Mima further teaches further comprising:
a drive board configured to drive the light source and the blower (See Figs. 2-3; [0029]; [0040]-[0044]), and arranged opposite to the second wall with respect to the pair of mounting pieces in the second direction (See Figs. 3, items 26, 22d, 30).
Regarding claim 13, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 12.
Mima further teaches further comprising:
a guide arranged adjacent to the drive board (See Figs. 3, items 22e, 30) and configured to guide an airflow from the blower to the air blowing space toward the heat sink (See Figs. 3, item 22e, and arrows showing air flow; [0040]-[0044]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mima (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019181937 A1) in view of Miwata (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200298600 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 2.
Mima further teaches wherein
the partition extends from the blower to the heat sink (See Figs. 3, showing item 22e extending from blower to heat sink)
Mima does not explicitly teach wherein the partition extends…from the third side wall to the fourth side wall (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Miwata further teaches wherein the partition extends from the blower to the heat sink and from the third side wall to the fourth side wall (See Figs 4-6, showing partition extending between lateral side walls, and extending between the blower and the heat sink; [0071]-[0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mima to include wherein the partition extends from the blower to the heat sink and from the third side wall to the fourth side wall (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Miwata.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Miwata in [0078], to improve the heat rejection efficiency of the heat sink via better control of the cooling wind.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mima (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019181937 A1), or alternatively over Mima in view of Miwata (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200298600 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Mima further teaches wherein the partition is (See Figs. 3, showing 22e indirectly connected to both 24(24a) and 24(24b))
Mima does not explicitly teach wherein the partition is directly connected to the outlet (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, in the embodiment of Fig. 3(a), the partition is connected to the inlet, and in the embodiment of Fig. 3(b), the partition is connected to the outlet (albeit indirectly through 22d).
In other words, Mima discloses the claimed invention except for direct connection of the partition to the outlet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mima to include wherein the partition is directly connected to the outlet (Emphasis added by Examiner), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950).
Alternatively, Miwata teaches wherein the partition is directly connected to the outlet (See Fig. 5, items 17 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mima to include wherein the partition is directly connected to the outlet, as taught by Miwata.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Miwata in [0078], to improve the heat rejection efficiency of the heat sink via better control of the cooling wind.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehata (JPO Doc. No. JP 2014207411 A) in view of Miwata (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200298600 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kanehata teaches a light irradiator (Abstract; [0001]), comprising:
a light source including a plurality of light-emitting elements ([0011]);
a heat sink thermally coupled to the light source ([0011]);
a blower for blowing toward the heat sink (See Fig. 1; [0011]);
a housing accommodating the light source, the blower, and the heat sink ([0011]), the housing having an outlet and an inlet (See Fig. 1; [0011]); and
Kanehata does not explicitly teach a partition in the housing, the partition dividing an internal space of the housing into an air blowing space between the blower and the heat sink and a remaining space excluding the air blowing space, wherein the partition is directly connected to the blower.
However, Kanehata discloses elements that could be reasonably construed as partitions. Item 5 could reasonably be interpreted as a partition, however, it does not ‘divide an internal space of the housing into an air blowing space between the blower and the heat sink and a remaining space excluding the air blowing space’. Item 34 could reasonably be interpreted as a partition that ‘divides an internal space of the housing into an air blowing space between the blower and the heat sink and a remaining space excluding the air blowing space’. However, neither of item 5 or item 34 is directly connected to the blower. Furthermore, as discussed above, item 34 could not reasonably be modified to be connected to the blower.
Nevertheless, Miwata teaches a partition in the housing, the partition dividing an internal space of the housing into an air blowing space between the blower and the heat sink and a remaining space excluding the air blowing space (See Figs. 4-6; [0040]-[0043]; [0071]-[0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kanehata to include a partition in the housing, the partition dividing an internal space of the housing into an air blowing space between the blower and the heat sink and a remaining space excluding the air blowing space, as taught by Miwata.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Miwata in [0078], to improve the heat rejection efficiency of the heat sink via better control of the cooling wind.
The combination of Kanehata to include the wind shielding member 20 of Miwata does not explicitly teach wherein the partition is directly connected to the blower.
However, the combination of Kanehata and Miwata discloses the claimed invention except for the partition being directly connected to the blower.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kanehata in view of Miwata to include wherein the partition is directly connected to the blower since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950).
Doing so amounts to a mere rearrangement of parts and would allow one to further control the air flow to the heat sink.
Regarding claim 2, Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Kanehata further teaches wherein
the housing includes
a bottom surface facing an emission direction of light from the light source and including a light emission window (See Fig. 1, left side of light emitting element),
a top surface opposite to the bottom surface and adjacent to the blower, the top surface having the inlet (See Fig. 1, right side, with inlet adjacent to blower 4),
a first side wall having the outlet and being connected to the bottom surface and the top surface (See Fig. 1, top side which is connected to left and right sides and has the exhaust port 6),
a second side wall extending between a first edge of the bottom surface and a second edge of the top surface, the second edge being opposite to the first edge of the bottom surface (See Fig. 1, bottom side),
a third side wall connected to the bottom surface, the top surface, and the second side wall (See Fig. 2, left or right side), and
a fourth side wall opposite to the third side wall and connected to the bottom surface, the top surface, and the second side wall (See Fig. 2, opposite of either left or right side).
Regarding claim 3, Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 2.
Kanehata does not teach wherein the partition extends from the blower to the heat sink and from the third side wall to the fourth side wall.
Miwata further teaches wherein the partition extends from the blower to the heat sink and from the third side wall to the fourth side wall (See Figs 4-6, showing partition extending between lateral side walls, and extending between the blower and the heat sink; [0071]-[0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kanehata to include wherein the partition extends from the blower to the heat sink and from the third side wall to the fourth side wall, as taught by Miwata.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Miwata in [0078], to improve the heat rejection efficiency of the heat sink via better control of the cooling wind.
Regarding claim 4, Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 2.
Kanehata further teaches further comprising:
a guide located on the (See Fig. 1, item 5; [0008]; [0012]).
Kanehata does not explicitly teach a guide located on the second side wall to guide an airflow from the blower to the air blowing space toward the heat sink (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, Kanehata discloses the claimed invention except for the guide being on the second wall (Kanehata discloses on the opposing wall, equivalent of the first side wall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kanehata to include a guide located on the second side wall to guide an airflow from the blower to the air blowing space toward the heat sink (Emphasis added by Examiner), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 6, Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Kanehata further teaches wherein
the blower includes an axial fan including blades rotatable about a central axis extending toward the heat sink (See Fig. 1, item 4; [0009]; [0011]-[0012]; [0015]).
Regarding claim 7, Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Kanehata further teaches wherein
the outlet is adjacent to the heat sink (See Fig. 5, items 6 and 34/35), and
the inlet is adjacent to the blower (See Fig. 5, item 4 and inlet to the right in the figure).
Regarding claim 8, Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, further teaches wherein
the partition is adjacent to the heat sink (See Miwata Figs. 4-6, items 20 and 13; Examiner additionally notes that were the partition of Miwata included in the device of Kanehata in the manner required by claim 1, that the partition would be adjacent to the heat sink).
Regarding claim 9, Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, further teaches wherein
the partition is directly connected to the outlet (See Miwata Figs. 4-6, items 20 and 17).
Claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehata (JPO Doc. No. JP 2014207411 A) in view of Miwata (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200298600 A1) and Mima (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019181937 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 2.
Kanehata does not teach further comprising: a drive board located along the second side wall to drive the light source and the blower.
Mima teaches further comprising:
a drive board located along the second side wall to drive the light source and the blower (See Fig. 2a, item 10; [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kanehata to include further comprising: a drive board located along the second side wall to drive the light source and the blower, as taught by Mima.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods and would allow one, as taught by Mima, to power the light emitters and blower via a conventional technology, and in such a manner that the powering thereof can further be cooled by the cooling airflow, as discussed in Mima [0029]-[0031].
Claims 10-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehata (JPO Doc. No. JP 2014207411 A) in view of Miwata (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200298600 A1) and Anderson (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130223910 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, further teaches wherein
the partition includes a first wall (See Miwata Figs. 4-6, items 20a, 20b, 20c, and 30),
a second wall extending from the first wall in a first direction crossing the first wall (See Miwata Figs. 4-6, items 20a, 20b, 20c, and 30 wherein 20a and 20b are shown as orthogonally disposed to 30 and 20c), and
a (See Miwata Figs. 4-6, item 20a, and in particular Fig. 4).
Kanehata and Miwata are both silent with respect to the mounting structures for the partition. However, tab/rail/cleat members for use with screws/bolts (such as, e.g., joist brackets, z-brackets, etc.) are well represented across various technological environments, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of conventional fixing members/mounting structures, and could readily apply such structures to mount the partition within the structure. For instance, item 20a in Fig. 4 of Miwata satisfies the positional requirements of the mounting pieces, and merely lacks disclosure of such a tab/rail/cleat being used for mounting.
Nevertheless, Anderson discloses such a mounting bracket geometry (see Figs 1-2, item 104), wherein a first plate extends orthogonally to the second plate, and mounting pieces extend in another direction other than the extension direction of the second plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kanehata in view of Miwata to include a pair of mounting pieces extending from the second wall in a second direction crossing the first direction (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, namely, by using conventional mounting technology in its conventional manner, applied to the disclosed structure of the partition of Miwata to mount the partition within the structure.
Regarding claim 11, Kanehata in view of Miwata and Anderson, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 10.
Kanehata in view of Miwata and Anderson, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the blower is attached to the pair of mounting pieces.
However, were the partition of Miwata included in Kanehata in the manner required by claim 1, the partition would be directly connected to the blower, and one of ordinary skill in the art would naturally use conventional fixing/mounting technology/techniques to connect the blower to the partition, such as by using a bracket such as that discussed in regards to claim 10. Accordingly, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kanehata in view of Miwata and Anderson, as modified, to explicitly include wherein the blower is attached to the pair of mounting pieces.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, namely, by using conventional mounting technology in its conventional manner, applied to the disclosed structure of the partition of Miwata to mount the partition and blower within the structure.
Alternatively, Kanehata in view of Miwata and Anderson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the blower being attached to the mounting pieces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mima to include wherein the blower is attached to the pair of mounting pieces, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950).
Claims 12-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehata (JPO Doc. No. JP 2014207411 A) in view of Miwata (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200298600 A1), Anderson (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130223910 A1), and Mima (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019181937 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kanehata in view of Miwata and Anderson, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 11.
Kanehata and Miwata each do not explicitly teach further comprising: a drive board configured to drive the light source and the blower, and arranged opposite to the second wall with respect to the pair of mounting pieces in the second direction.
Mima teaches a drive board configured to drive the light source and the blower(See Figs. 2-3; [0029]; [0040]-[0044]), and arranged opposite to the second wall with respect to the pair of mounting pieces in the second direction (See Figs. 3, items 26, 22d, 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kanehata in view of Miwata, as modified, to include further comprising: a drive board configured to drive the light source and the blower, and arranged opposite to the second wall with respect to the pair of mounting pieces in the second direction, as taught by Mima.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as LED light sources typically involve some sort of drive board, and such a drive board being configured to power the blower would allow one to simplify the construction, and the specific disposal of the drive board could be determined by routine experimentation as only a limited number of locations exist within such a system, and in particular, as taught by Mima, in a location where the cooling air can also cool such a drive board.
Regarding claim 13, Kanehata in view of Miwata, Anderson, and Mima, as modified, teaches the light irradiator according to claim 12.
Kanehata further teaches further comprising:
a guide (See Figs. 1 and 3, item 5; [0012]).
Kanehata does not explicitly teach a guide arranged adjacent to the drive board (Emphasis added by Examiner), as Kanehata does not explicitly teach a drive board. However, as discussed above, such an LED light source will typically include some sort of drive board.
Nevertheless, Mima further teaches a guide arranged adjacent to the drive board (See Figs. 3, items 22e, 30).
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 CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881