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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/03/2026 with the above entered RCE have been entered. Claims 10-13 have been canceled. Claim 14 has been added. Claims 1-9 and 14 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 amended claim limitations not present at the time of the Final Office Action dated 02/04/2026, hereinafter FOA0204. See below for a detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murayama (JPO Doc. No. JP 2019153375 A).
Regarding claim 1, Murayama teaches a light irradiator (See Figs. 1-6; Title; Abstract), comprising:
a light source including a plurality of light-emitting elements (See Figs. 1-6, items 30, 32; Abstract; [0028]-[0029]);
a heat sink thermally coupled to the light source (See Figs. 1-6, items 50, 51, 52; [0030]-[0031]);
a blower for blowing toward the heat sink (See Figs. 1-6, items 70; [0032]-[0034]);
a housing accommodating the light source, the blower, and the heat sink (See Figs. 1-6, item 10; [0021]-[0027]), the housing having an outlet and an inlet (See Figs. 1-6, items 10, 12, 13; [0021]-[0027]); and
a partition in the housing (See Figs. 1-6, items 80, 81; [0035]-[0039]), 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. 2, 4-6, items 80, 81, separating housing into air blowing space, i.e., downstream, and a remaining space, i.e., upstream), wherein
the partition includes
a first portion (See Figs. 2, 4-6, and in particular Fig. 6, an edge portion of the plate 81 on one side of one or both of the openings 82 where the fan is disposed; [0037]), and
a second portion separated from the first portion (See Figs. 2, 4-6, and in particular Fig. 6, an edge portion of the plate 81 on one side of one or both of the openings 82, opposite to the first portion; [0037]), and
the first portion and the second portion are directly connected to the blower and support the blower in a direction of gravity (See Figs. 1-6, showing in operation the plate is beneath the blower and connected thereto, and thus is interpreted as ‘support in a direction of gravity’, as the fan would at least partially rest on the plate 80; [0035]-[0039], and in particular [0037], disclosing the plate 80 clamping the fan with plate 71).
Regarding claim 2, Murayama teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Murayama 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. 1-6, items 10a, 11; [0024]),
a top surface opposite to the bottom surface and adjacent to the blower (See Figs. 1-6, item 10b, adjacent items 70; [0024]), the top surface having the inlet,
a first side wall having the outlet and being connected to the bottom surface and the top surface (See Figs. 1-6, and in particular Figs. 1 and 3, item 10c, connected to 10a and 10b, having outlet 13; [0023]-[0027]),
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. 1-6, and in particular Fig. 1, item 10d, connected to respective edges of 10a and 10b; [0023]),
a third side wall connected to the bottom surface, the top surface, and the second side wall (See Figs. 1-6, and in particular Fig. 1, unlabeled side wall, either near or far side in figure), 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. 1-6, and in particular Fig. 1, unlabeled side wall, either near or far side in figure).
Regarding claim 3, Murayama teaches the light irradiator according to claim 2.
Murayama 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. 1-6, and in particular, Figs. 2-5, items 80, 81, which extends between unlabeled side walls and between fans 70 and heat sink elements 50, 51, 52).
Regarding claim 6, Murayama teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Murayama further teaches wherein
the blower includes an axial fan including blades rotatable about a central axis extending toward the heat sink (See Fig. 7, items 74; See also Figs. 2, 4-5, 8, showing blower relative to heat sink; [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Murayama teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Murayama further teaches wherein
the outlet is adjacent to the heat sink (See Figs. 1-5, 8, 10, items 83 adjacent items 50, 51, 52), and
the inlet is adjacent to the blower (See Figs. 1-2, item 12 adjacent items 70).
Regarding claim 8, Murayama teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Murayama teaches wherein
the partition is adjacent to the heat sink (See Figs. 2-5, 8, 10, items 80, 81 and items 50, 51, 52).
Regarding claim 9, Murayama teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Murayama further teaches wherein
the partition is directly connected to the outlet (See Figs. 2-5, 8, 10, items 80, 81 directly connected to at least one outlet 13).
Regarding claim 14, Murayama teaches the light irradiator according to claim 1.
Murayama further teaches wherein
an air layer is between the first portion and the second portion (See Figs. 6-7, showing first and second portions separated by opening 82 in plate 81; Examiner notes that ‘air layer’ is interpreted as there being a space for at least a thin volume of air between the two portions).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JPO Doc. No. JP 2019153375 A).
Regarding claim 4, Murayama teaches the light irradiator according to claim 2.
Murayama further teaches further comprising:
a guide located on the (See Figs. 1-6, 8 and in particular Figs. 5 and 8, item 80; [0035]-[0039]; [0042]-[0047]).
Murayama 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), and rather teaches the guide on the equivalent of the first side wall to guide the airflow from the blower to the air blowing space toward the heat sink.
However, Murayama achieves equivalent functionality, wherein the airflow is controlled by the guide to effectively expose the heat sink to cooling air en route to the outlet.
Accordingly, Murayama teaches the structure and functionality, and merely lacks the precise positioning within the system.
However, the precise positioning of such a guide is dependent on the precise system in which it is employed, as the positioning of the blower (and thus the airflow) relative to the fins determines where such a guide would need to be positioned, i.e., the position is result effective. One of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised on how to position such a guide to achieve adequate airflow for cooling, and it is thus Examiner’s opinion that it would be obvious to try to position such a guide in any position downstream of the blower capable of adequately deflecting the airflow toward the fins for cooling.
See MPEP 2143.I.E. At the time of Murayama, the inventors had clearly recognized the problem of controlling the cooling airflow to the heat sink fins, and applied a guide to achieve sufficient airflow for cooling. The placement of such a guide would necessarily be downstream of the fan(s) and sufficiently proximate to the fins to direct adequate airflow thereto, and there would be a limited number of suitable positions for such a guide to achieve adequate airflow to/cooling of the fins. One of ordinary skill in the art could readily replace such a guide as necessary within the system by mere repositioning if it were determined that such positioning were proper for the functionality given the particular system conditions.
One of ordinary skill in the art could readily measure and/or simulate (as discussed in Murayama, see Figs. 8-9, [0053]) airflow via conventional techniques, and/or could readily measure the temperature of the LED device/heat sink(s) to determine whether adequate airflow/cooling is occurring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily test reasonable positionings for the guide using conventional techniques with a reasonable expectation of success for a given arrangement of the fan(s) relative to the fins.
Accordingly, specifically locating the guide on a particular wall to achieve the functionality ‘to guide an airflow from the blower to the air blowing space toward the heat sink’, which is disclosed by Murayama, would be obvious to try, and thus the limitation a guide located on the second side wall to guide an airflow from the blower to the air blowing space toward the heat sink is obvious over the teachings of Murayama.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JPO Doc. No. JP 2019153375 A) in view of Mima (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019181937 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Murayama teaches the light irradiator according to claim 2.
Murayama further teaches further comprising:
a drive board located along the second side wall to drive the light source (See Fig. 2, items 90, at least one of which is ‘along the second side wall’; [0040]).
Murayama does not explicitly teach the drive board driving the blower.
However, the fan of Murayama must have some sort of driver element that is not explicitly disclosed, and thus Murayama merely lacks the same drive board driving both the light source and the blower.
Mima discloses a drive board…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 Murayama to explicitly include a drive board…to drive the light source and the blower, as taught by Mima, in order to achieve a drive board located along the second side wall to drive the light source and the blower (Emphasis added by Examiner), by the combination.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as driver elements controlling plural elements (and explicitly the blower and light source) are disclosed in Mima, and could be readily applied to the invention of Murayama with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yokoyama (US 20050253913 A1);
Watanabe (US 20190128511 A1);
Watanabe’313 (US 20200205313 A1);
Takubo (US 20210323322 A1);
Hioki (US 20220250398 A1);
Hioki’256 (US 20230102256 A1);
Watanabe’381 (WO 2018216381 A1);
Takahashi (WO 2019163555 A1).
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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights