DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 June 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 10, “LEL element” should read --LED element--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par 0064, “Ivy” need not be capitalized.
In par 0078, “NAPD+” should read --NADP+--.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the ninth line, “a dark environment time period” should read --the dark environment time period-- to clearly reference the time period introduced in the fourth line.
8. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the preamble, “according to any of claim 2” should read --according to claim 2--.
9. Claims 14 and 15 are objected for the following informalities: the limitation “wherein the process (a) is a process of radiating the ultraviolet light during a time period when the visible light from the illumination light source is radiated” appears to have an identical scope and does not further limit the scope of claim 1. For clarity, the quoted limitation should be deleted.
Claim 14 is further objected to because of the following informalities: in the seventh line, “the first controller and the second controller is housed” should read --the first controller and the second controller are housed--.
Claim 15 is further objected to because of the following informalities: in the tenth line, “as well as” should read --and--, for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
10. Regarding claim 5, “substantially turning off the ultraviolet light source” is interpreted per Specification par 0033 as reducing the radiation output of the ultraviolet light source to “less than 0.1% of its maximum output, or turned off completely”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. 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.
12. Claims 2-5, 7 and 14-15 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.
13. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the illuminance in the target space" in the eighth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear whether this illuminance is intended to reference the visible irradiation of the plant as recited in claim 1 or can refer to radiation received elsewhere in the target space.
14. Claims 3-5 and 7 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 2.
15. Claim 5 recites a process (d) of substantially turning off the illumination light source “being lit after the process (c)”, which is indefinite as it is unclear whether the process (d) requires that the illumination light source is turned from an off-state to an on-state (e.g., as a candle being lit) or simply involves turning off the illumination light source from a lit state to an unlit state. The latter interpretation is taken herein, as the Specification par 0031 does not specifically describe a turning on step pertaining to process (d).
16. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the same enclosure" in the sixth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first controller" in the seventh line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a first controller” is introduced in claim 11 but claim 14 does not depend from claim 11.
17. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first controller" in the seventh line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a first controller” is introduced in claim 11 but claim 14 does not depend from claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
19. Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldasaro (US 20220163194 A1) in view of Yamada et al (US 20110016785 A1).
20. Regarding claim 1, Baldasaro discloses a method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses (killing pathogens, including airborne coronaviruses, pars 0003-0005) in a target space (disinfectant lamp 102 arranged to irradiate the space in the room when activated, par 0060), the method comprising a process (a) of irradiating the target space with ultraviolet light (irradiate a person and/or the air around the person with UVC light to disinfect the person and/or the air around the person, pars 0045 and 0047) having light intensity in a wavelength band belonging to within a range from 190 nm to 235 nm from an ultraviolet light source (second lamp e.g., the disinfectant lamp 102 generating UVC light having a peak wavelength between 200 nm and 225 nm, par 0082), wherein the process (a) is performed during a time period when the target space is irradiated with visible light from an illumination light source (FIG. 12, activating the second lamp generating UVC light after providing power to the luminaire to activate the visible lamp, pars 0081-0082).
Although the lighting system of Baldasaro can safely irradiate an occupied space such as a room in a building (pars 0003-0005 and 0060), Baldasaro does not teach that a plant is placed in the target space.
Yamada teaches an analogous irradiation system for plants (Abstract, FIG. 1, pars 0025-0027) including a visible light and UVC light sources individually controlled (FIG. 1, pars 0026-0028) wherein multiple lighting arrangements can be configured (FIG. 5). Yamada teaches that the UV light source can have a spectral distribution that includes the wavelength component of approximately 250 nm or less as long as the irradiance is lower than the total UVC+UVB irradiance (par 0028). The tandem illumination of visible light and UVC radiation can be controlled strategically to prevent leaf scorch while generating an antibacterial substance and eliminating diseases on the plant (pars 0004-0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, place a plant in the target space as taught by Yamada on which to execute the UV irradiation method of Baldasaro. Doing so would predictably provide similar elimination of microorganisms on the plant as the tandem irradiation of visible and UVC wavelengths are taught by Yamada to eliminate microorganisms on plants and generate disease resistance in a manner that advantageously prevents leaf scorch (Yamada pars 0006-0008).
21. Regarding claim 6, Baldasaro in view of Yamada teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 1,wherein the illumination light source includes multiple lamps separated from one another (Baldasaro par 0078, FIG. 6), each luminaire including at least one disinfectant lamp and at least one visible lamp (Baldasaro pars 0071-0074). If the plant is placed near one of these lamp fixtures so as to illuminate the plant with both types of radiation, this combination necessarily teaches a first illumination light source that entirely irradiates the target space with visible light and a second illumination light source that locally irradiates the plant with visible light. Baldasaro teaches that the process (a) is performed when at least the second illumination light source is lit (Baldasaro FIG. 12, activating the second lamp generating UVC light after providing power to the luminaire to activate the visible lamp, pars 0081-0082).
Although Baldasaro teaches that the visible lamp may be a set of two lamps, each operable to generate visible light when activated (Baldasaro par 0080), this does not explicitly read upon wherein the second illumination light source is configured to be capable of turning on even when the first illumination light source is unlit. However, in an embodiment of the method, Baldasaro also teaches that a third lamp can be activated after the first or primary visible lamp is activated (Baldasaro par 0082, FIG. 12, 158). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Baldasaro such that the second illumination source is configured to be capable of turning on even when the first illumination source is unlit, as Baldasaro advantageously teaches individual operation of the emitters with the lighting system (Baldasaro pars 0056-0057 and 0080-0082).
22. Regarding claim 8, Baldasaro in view of Yamada teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 6. Although the combination does not specifically teach the claimed process (e), Baldasaro further teaches a plurality of lamps in a facility that are not all turned on or off at the same time e.g. in response to a sensor signal (Baldasaro par 0056) and that lamps can be activated to irradiate a person who is coming down a hall (Baldasaro par 0054), which would involve turning on and off illumination lamps in succession as the person moves such that the second illumination light source turns on when the second illumination light source is unlit at a time when the first illumination light source transitions from a lighting state to an unlit state. In such a scenario, the process (a) is performed after the process (e) for the second illumination lamp (Baldasaro FIG. 12, activating the second lamp generating UVC light after providing power to the luminaire to activate the visible lamp, pars 0081-0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to execute the method of modified Baldasaro using a plurality of lamps activated with visible light in succession, as Baldasaro teaches that such an arrangement can effectively irradiate a target that is passing through a space. Doing so would predictably provide illumination and disinfection in a similar manner, as Baldasaro teaches that the activation of an illumination lamp is advantageously followed by activation of UV lighting (Baldasaro FIG. 12).
23. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldasaro (US 20220163194 A1) and Yamada et al (US 20110016785 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al (US 20100246169 A1).
24. Regarding claim 2, Baldasaro in view of Yamada teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 1, further comprising a process (b) of turning on the illumination light source at any time during a dark environment time period (providing power to the luminaire 110 from a power supply 104 to activate a first lamp, Baldasaro par 0081) after a bright environment time period is transitioned to the dark environment time period (first lamp also configured to be deactivated, Baldasaro par 0013), wherein the bright environment time period and the dark environment time period exist by changing an irradiation amount of sunlight or visible light from the illumination light source to the target space with time (the at least one visible lamp 136 is configured to be activated as soon as the luminaire 110 is powered on…and/or configured to be activated in response to sensors, Baldasaro par 0074), and the process (a) is performed after the process (b) (Baldasaro FIG. 12, disinfectant lamp activated after visible lamp activated).
The combination is silent regarding the illuminance in the target space, thus does not teach wherein the illuminance in the target space is 100 lx or more during the bright environment time period nor wherein the illuminance in the target space is less than 100 lx during the dark environment time period.
Anderson teaches an analogous lighting device having visible light and bactericidal light emitters (pars 0005-0008) wherein normal room lighting is taught as being in the range of 200-500 lux (par 0032) and that near-UV lighting would be applied to achieve a total illuminance of 10-20 lux (pars 0029 and 0032), which would correspond to emitting bactericidal light during a dark period in the present invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose illumination levels in the method of modified Baldasaro of 200-500 lux for the bright period and 10-20 lux for the dark period as taught by Anderson. Doing so would predictably provide adequate room lighting for illuminating the target space and plant therein.
25. Regarding claim 3, Baldasaro in view of Yamada and Anderson teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 2, wherein only the UV disinfection lamp is subject to control according to a predetermined schedule (Baldasaro par 0049). The combination does not teach wherein the process (b) is a process of turning on the illumination light source after confirming that a current time belongs to the dark environment time period based on time period information regarding at least one of the bright environment time period and the dark environment time period.
Anderson further teaches that high intensity visible light LEDS can be boosted overnight when personnel are not present, allowing for control of bacterial growth without worrying about safety and discomfort of people during the overnight period (par 0040 and 0030-0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of modified Baldasaro a process of turning on the illumination light source after confirming that a current time belongs to a dark environment time period as taught by Anderson. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantageous disinfection effect during the night period by controlling for a higher intensity of radiation when people are not present as taught by Anderson.
26. Regarding claim 5, Baldasaro in view of Yamada and Anderson teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 2, wherein the process (a) contains a process of irradiating the target space with the ultraviolet light during a predetermined ultraviolet light irradiation time period (second [UVC] lamp is configured to remain activated for a predetermined activation time, Baldasaro pars 0009-0010), the method further comprising a process (c) of substantially turning off the ultraviolet light source after the ultraviolet light irradiation time period elapses (second lamp is configured to deactivate after the predetermined activation time, Baldasaro par 0010) and a process (d) of substantially turning off the illumination light source being lit after the process (c).
Baldasaro as modified does not specifically teach that process (c) would occur when at least part of the ultraviolet light irradiation time period belongs to the dark environment time period, but Anderson further teaches that a space can be irradiated with high intensity disinfecting radiation without the safety and comfort considerations necessary during occupied hours. As such, it would make sense to execute the process (c) whether or not the time period in question overlaps with the dark environment time period, satisfying the claim as the general method of Baldasaro FIG. 12 will be carried out under the claimed conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of modified Baldasaro a process of substantially turning off the ultraviolet light source after the ultraviolet light irradiation time period elapses when at least part of the ultraviolet light irradiation time period belongs to the dark environment time period as taught by Anderson, as doing so would predictably enable thorough UV disinfection during the dark environment time period.
27. Regarding claim 7, Baldasaro in view of Yamada and Anderson teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 2, wherein the illumination light source includes multiple lamps separated from one another (Baldasaro par 0078, FIG. 6), each luminaire including at least one disinfectant lamp and at least one visible lamp (Baldasaro pars 0071-0074). If the plant is placed near one of these lamp fixtures so as to illuminate the plant with both types of radiation, this combination necessarily teaches a first illumination light source that entirely irradiates the target space with visible light and a second illumination light source that locally irradiates the plant with visible light. The combination further teaches that the process (b) is a process of turning on the second illumination light source at any time during the dark environment time period (high intensity visible light LEDS can be boosted overnight when personnel are not present, allowing for control of bacterial growth without worrying about safety and discomfort of people during the overnight period, Anderson pars 0040 and 0030-0032).
Although Baldasaro as modified teaches that the visible lamp may be a set of two lamps, each operable to generate visible light when activated (Baldasaro par 0080), this does not explicitly read upon wherein the second illumination light source is configured to be capable of turning on even when the first illumination light source is unlit. However, in an embodiment of the method, Baldasaro also teaches that a third lamp can be activated after the first or primary visible lamp is activated (Baldasaro par 0082, FIG. 12, 158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Baldasaro such that the second illumination source is configured to be capable of turning on even when the first illumination source is unlit, as Baldasaro advantageously teaches individual operation of the emitters within the lighting system (Baldasaro pars 0056-0057 and 0080-0082).
28. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldasaro (US 20220163194 A1), Yamada et al (US 20110016785 A1), and Anderson et al (US 20100246169 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ishiwata et al (US 20110163246 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Baldasaro as modified by Yamada and Anderson teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 3, wherein the process (b) is a process of turning on the illumination light source after confirming that the current time belongs to the dark environment time period based on the time period (high intensity visible light LEDS can be boosted overnight when personnel are not present, allowing for control of bacterial growth without worrying about safety and discomfort of people during the overnight period, Anderson pars 0040 and 0030-0032). The combination does not teach that the illumination light source includes a memory unit that records the time period information and a clock unit that detects the current time.
Ishiwata teaches an analogous lighting system for preventing plant disease damage using an ultraviolet light source and a visible light source (Abstract, par 0005) wherein the controller has a timer which prerecords data on annual sunset time and sunrise time (par 0013), i.e. a memory unit that records time period information. In order to illuminate the plant area for a controllable time period, the controller is set to turn on and off the ultraviolet and visible light sources based on a time setting which inherently reads upon a clock unit by virtue of telling time for the machine (pars 0039-0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the illumination light source system of modified Baldasaro a memory unit that records time period information and a clock unit for timekeeping as taught by Ishiwata. Doing so would predictably enable timed control of the method to illuminate the target space as Ishiwata similarly teaches illumination using the visible light source after sunset (Ishiwata par 0039).
29. Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldasaro (US 20220163194 A1) and Yamada et al (US 20110016785 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishiwatari et al (JP 2009261289 A, references made to English Machine Translation).
30. Regarding claim 9, Baldasaro in view of Yamada teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 1, wherein the process (a) is a process of turning on the ultraviolet light source concurrently with visible light illuminance in the space (Baldasaro FIG. 12, activating the second lamp generating UVC light after providing power to the luminaire to activate the visible lamp, pars 0081-0082). The combination does not teach a process (f) of detecting illuminance in the target space nor that the ultraviolet light source would be turned on specifically when the illuminance detected in the process (f) is equal to or more than a reference value of 100 lx or more.
Ishiwatari teaches an analogous plant irradiation system employing both visible light and ultraviolet light (pars 0011-0016 and 0022-0025) wherein a light sensor is installed near the plants to measure the real-time illuminance (par 0022). The system turns off the ultraviolet light when a measured light illuminance falls below a threshold of about 1000 lux (pars 0022 and 0025) i.e. only irradiating the plant and target area with ultraviolet light when visible illumination exceeds this threshold, this suppression of ultraviolet light advantageously preventing undesirable leaf scorch (pars 0022-0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of modified Baldasaro a process of detecting illuminance in the target space and only turning on the ultraviolet light if the detected illuminance is about 1000 lux or more as taught by Ishiwatari. Doing so would predictably enable control of the light sources based on a detected illuminance and can similarly prevent leaf scorch by properly timing the radiation exposure as beneficially taught by Ishiwatari.
31. Regarding claim 10, Baldasaro as modified by Yamada and Ishiwatari teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 9, wherein when the illuminance detected in the process (f) is less than the reference value, the process (a) includes a process of turning on the ultraviolet light source after turning on the illumination light source (Baldasaro FIG. 12, activating the second lamp generating UVC light after providing power to the luminaire to activate the visible lamp, Baldasaro pars 0081-0082) or increasing light intensity thereof to achieve the illuminance equal to or more than the reference value (control unit controls the lighting of the auxiliary light source that irradiates light in the wavelength range of 400 nm to 700 nm so that the illuminance on the plant is approximately 1000 lux or more when the illuminance measured by the external light sensor is approximately 1000 lux or less, Ishiwatari par 0006).
32. Regarding claim 11, Baldasaro as modified by Yamada and Ishiwatari teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 10, wherein the process (f) is a process of detecting the illuminance in the target space by means of an illuminance meter (external light sensor 13 measures real-time illuminance values near the growing points of the plants, Ishiwatari par 0022). Though the system of Baldasaro does include a controller in the form of a safety system 128 operable to shut off the disinfectant lamp in some circumstances as determined by a sensor (Baldasaro pars 0067-0069), the combination does not specifically teach wherein the process (a) includes a process in which a first controller mounted on the illumination light source controls light output of the illumination light source based on information about the illuminance sent from the illuminance meter.
Ishiwatari further teaches that auxiliary light source 14 is controlled when illuminance measured by the external light sensor 13 is equal to or less than the threshold value (Ishiwatari par 0030) i.e. based on information about the illuminance sent from the illuminance meter. The control unit 12 controls the lighting of the artificial light source (par 0032), which is depicted mounted on the same frame as light sources 11 and 14 (Ishiwatari FIG. 1) and may be configured integrally with the artificial light source 11 or the auxiliary light source 14 (Ishiwatari par 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the system of modified Baldasaro a first controller mounted on the illumination light source that controls light output of the illumination light source based on information about the illuminance sent from the illuminance meter as taught by Ishiwatari. Doing so would predictably control visible light illumination in the same manner, advantageously ensuring the visible light illumination is sufficient to prevent leaf scorch while disinfecting with UV radiation (Ishiwatari pars 0022-0024).
33. Regarding claim 12, Baldasaro as modified by Yamada and Ishiwatari teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 9, the method further comprising a process (g) of substantially turning off the ultraviolet light source being lit when the illuminance detected in the process (f) is less than the reference value (when the illuminance is approximately 1000 lux or less, the lighting device 10 turns off the artificial light source 11 and does not irradiate ultraviolet rays, Ishiwatari pars 0022-0025).
34. Regarding claim 13, Baldasaro as modified by Yamada and Ishiwatari teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 12, wherein the process (f) is a process of detecting the illuminance in the target space by means of an illuminance meter (external light sensor 13 measures real-time illuminance values near the growing points of the plants, Ishiwatari par 0022). Though the system of Baldasaro does include a controller in the form of a safety system 128 operable to shut off the disinfectant lamp in some circumstances as determined by a sensor (Baldasaro pars 0067-0069), the combination does not specifically teach wherein the process (g) includes a process in which a second controller mounted on the ultraviolet light source controls light output of the ultraviolet light source based on information about the illuminance sent from the illuminance meter.
Ishiwatari further teaches that the control unit 12 controls the artificial light source 11 to be turned on if the measurement value is greater than a threshold value sent from the external light sensor 13, and to be turned off if the measurement value is equal to or less than the threshold value sent from the external light sensor 13 (Ishiwatari par 0018) i.e. based on information about the illuminance sent from the illuminance meter. The control unit 12 is depicted mounted on the same frame as light sources 11 and 14 (Ishiwatari FIG. 1) and may be configured integrally with the artificial light source 11 or the auxiliary light source 14 (Ishiwatari par 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the system of modified Baldasaro a first controller mounted on the illumination light source that controls light output of the illumination light source based on information about the illuminance sent from the illuminance meter as taught by Ishiwatari. Doing so would predictably control visible light illumination in the same manner, advantageously ensuring the visible light illumination is sufficient to prevent leaf scorch while disinfecting with UV radiation (Ishiwatari pars 0022-0024).
35. Regarding claim 14, Baldasaro as modified by Yamada and Ishiwatari teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 13, wherein the process (a) is a process of radiating the ultraviolet light during a time period when the visible light from the illumination light source is radiated (Baldasaro FIG. 12, activating the second lamp generating UVC light after providing power to the luminaire to activate the visible lamp, Baldasaro pars 0081-0082), the ultraviolet light source and the illumination light source are housed in the same enclosure (Baldasaro FIGS. 8-11), and the first controller and the second controller constitute a common controller (control unit 12, Ishiwatari par 0013 and FIG. 1).
Though the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first controller and the second controller are housed in the enclosure, Ishiwatari teaches that the control unit may be configured integrally with the artificial light source 11 or the auxiliary light source 14. In the case that the ultraviolet light source is controlled by an integral controller and the visible light source is controlled by an integral controller, these controllers would necessarily be housed in the same enclosure as the light sources shown in Baldasaro FIG. 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controllers within the method of modified Baldasaro to be configured integrally to their respective light sources and therefore housed in the enclosure as taught by Ishiwatari. Doing so would predictably provide the same individual control of emitters within the protective housing.
36. Regarding claim 15, Baldasaro as modified by Yamada and Ishiwatari teaches the method of inactivating bacteria and/or viruses according to claim 13, wherein the process (a) is a process of radiating the ultraviolet light during a time period when the visible light from the illumination light source is radiated (Baldasaro FIG. 12, activating the second lamp generating UVC light after providing power to the luminaire to activate the visible lamp, Baldasaro pars 0081-0082). The method of Baldasaro does not specifically teach a case where the illuminance sent from the illuminance meter is equal to or more than the reference value wherein the process (a) includes a process in which the second controller controls the ultraviolet light source to increase light intensity thereof as well as the first controller controls the illumination light source to increase light intensity thereof.
Ishiwatari further teaches an operating procedure for the visible/ultraviolet lighting device (pars 0033-0044) wherein if the measured light intensity value sent from the external light sensor 13 exceeds the threshold value, the control unit 12 immediately sends a control signal to the artificial light source 11 to turn it on again (par 0041), an equivalent process to increasing the ultraviolet light via the second controller. The auxiliary light source is simultaneously activated to provide visible light at >1000 lux while ultraviolet radiation is emitted (pars 0031-0032), an equivalent process to increasing the illumination light intensity by the first controller that occurs at least when light intensity is less than 1000 lux.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Baldasaro to include a process in which the second controller controls the ultraviolet light source to increase light intensity thereof and the first controller controls the illumination light source to increase light intensity thereof when the illuminance sent from the illuminance meter is equal to or more than the reference value as taught by Ishiwatari. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantageous effect of enabling ultraviolet light disinfection and suppressing plant deterioration with visible light as taught by Ishiwatari (pars 0009 and 0029-0030).
Conclusion
37. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Janisiewicz et al (US 20150283276 A1) teaches an analogous method for illuminating a space with UV-C radiation (Abstract, pars 0031-0036) wherein UV-C radiation with wavelengths between 200 nm and 290 nm has been used to kill microorganisms on various plants in agriculture and in the food industry (par 0007).
Ramer et al (US 20220062463 A1) teaches an analogous visible/far-UVC irradiation system with extensive control for localized irradiation (FIG. 1, pars 0018-0020 and 0068-0072).
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758