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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee (US 20210310637 A1), further in view of Palmer et al. (US 20140084185 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/06/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Yee teaches a luminaire for emitting ultraviolet radiation (1800, Fig. 18A-B), the luminaire comprising:
an ultraviolet radiation source having a field of irradiation (UV-C lamp 103/103a with field θA, Fig. 18A-B),
an optical sensor having a field of view (IR sensor 1804 having field ϕA, Fig. 18A-B), the optical sensor being configured to detect motion or presence of an object in the field of view (“when the motion detector detects motion”, [0098], where the IR sensor is the motion sensor) and to output a signal indicative of detected motion or presence of the object (“generate a warning signal if the person is located a distance away from the device that is less than or equal to the first radius”, claim 1),
a control unit (controller 200, Fig. 2, where “FIG. 18 shows a directional detection and avoidance system 1800 that can be used in the UVGI system 100 shown in FIG. 1”, [0103], and “FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of controller 200 for use in UVGI system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention”, [0080]) configured to control the ultraviolet radiation source (“the controller 200 includes a shut off system”, [0098] and Fig. 2) based on the signal from the optical sensor (“the shut off system includes a sensor, such as a motion detector”, [0098]), the control unit being connected to the ultraviolet radiation source (“a switch connected to the lamps”, where “the controller 200 is programmed to open the switch, thereby deactivating the lamps”, [0098] and Fig. 2) and being configured to switch off the ultraviolet radiation source (“thereby deactivating the lamps”, [0098]) upon receipt of the signal indicative of detected motion or presence of the object (“the controller 200 is programmed to open the switch… when the motion detector detects motion”, [0098] and Fig. 2).
Yee teaches an optical sensor (IR sensor 1804, Fig. 18A-B) and an ultraviolet source (103/103A, Fig. 18A-B) having a reflector (parabolic reflector 2002a, Fig. 18A-B and Table 1), but fails to teach an optical system, wherein the ultraviolet radiation source and the optical sensor are both located upstream of the optical system, and
wherein the optical system is configured to shape the field of irradiation of the ultraviolet radiation source and the field of view of the optical sensor such that the field of irradiation of the ultraviolet radiation source falls within the field of view of the optical sensor downstream of the optical system.
Palmer teaches a reflecting assembly for UV germicidal light fixtures (Fig. 1), where UV light source (14, Fig. 1) has reflectors (18, 20, 24, and 26, Fig. 3) for collimating and redirecting UV light ([0005]). The assembly further teaches a series of baffles (16, Fig. 1) downstream of the UV light source (14, Fig. 1) for the purpose of “controlling the direction of UV light… thereby protecting against the undesired exposure of occupants of a room to UV light” ([0015]); in context to Palmer, when the fixture is positioned to sterilize just the upper air in the room, the baffles ensure the radiation does not expose anything under the baffle-directed area ([0015]).
Yee and Palmer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV germicidal light fixtures.
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 reflector and UV light of Yee by incorporating a series of baffles downstream of the UV light source and reflectors as taught by Palmer for the purpose of “controlling the direction of UV light… thereby protecting against the undesired exposure of occupants of a room to UV light” (Palmer, [0015]).
In view of this modification, Yee in view of Palmer teaches wherein the optical system (Palmer, baffles 16, Fig. 1) is configured to shape the field of irradiation of the ultraviolet radiation source (the baffles shape Yee’s UV radiation emitted from source 103/103a in Fig. 18A-B the same way Palmer’s UV radiation from source 14 of Fig. 1 is directionally controlled, thus shaping the field of irradiation) and the field of view of the optical sensor (baffles located downstream of UV light source mean the baffles are also located downstream of the IR sensor 1804 in Fig. 18B of Yee) such that the field of irradiation of the ultraviolet radiation source (θA, Fig. 18B) falls within the field of view of the optical sensor (ϕA is broader than θA, Fig. 18B) downstream of the optical system (baffles 16 of Palmer Fig. 1).
Examiner notes the incorporation of Palmer’s baffles to Yee’s UV light source and reflectors provide a physical impediment (thus, controlled direction) to both the UV and the IR sensor’s fields of view (because both are located upstream of the baffles, see Fig. 18B). Thus the shaping is not only done to the UV field of irradiation, but also the IR sensing field of view as well. The burden is shifted to the Applicant to provide evidence on the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, Yee in view of Palmer teaches wherein the optical system (Palmer, baffles 16, Fig. 1, for the modification purposes in claim 1 rejection above) comprises a plurality of louvers or gratings (Palmer, baffles 16 are a plurality of gratings/louvers).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yee teaches wherein the field of irradiation of the ultraviolet radiation source (θA, Fig. 18B) is 75 % to 100 % of the field of view of the optical sensor (ϕA is 50°, whereas θA is 45°, Fig. 18B and [0105-0106], meaning the field of irradiation of the ultraviolet radiation source is 90% of the field of view of the optical sensor).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yee teaches wherein the ultraviolet radiation source (UV source 103/103a, Fig. 18A-B) is configured to emit radiation of a first spectral range (“conventional UV lamps 102,103 emitting UV light at wavelengths of 185 nm and 254 nm may be used”, [0071] and Fig. 18A-B) and wherein the optical sensor (IR sensor 1804, Fig. 18A-B) is configured to detect radiation of a second spectral range (infrared sensors detect infrared radiation, which is not in the spectral range of the UV wavelengths of 185 nm nor 254 nm), wherein the first spectral range and the second spectral range are different (infrared sensors detect infrared radiation, which is not in the spectral range of the UV wavelengths of 185 nm nor 254 nm).
Regarding claim 5, Yee in view of Palmer teaches wherein the optical system (Palmer, baffles 16, Fig. 1) is configured to shape the field of irradiation (Yee, θA, Fig. 18B, shaped by Palmer’s baffles) of the ultraviolet radiation source (103/103a, Fig. 18A-B) and the field of view (ϕA, Fig. 18B) of the optical sensor (IR sensor 1804, Fig. 18A-B) differently (the sensor field of view ϕA portion that does not overlap and is outside of the UV source field of view θA in Fig. 18B of Yee is not shaped by Palmer’s baffles, which is different than the field of irradiation of the UV source being entirely shaped by the baffles).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yee teaches wherein the optical sensor (IR sensor 1804, Fig. 18A-B) is arranged to detect at least one of visible light and infrared radiation (infrared radiation from IR sensor 1804, Fig. 18A-B).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yee teaches wherein the optical sensor is a (IR sensor 1804, Fig. 18A-B) passive infrared sensor (passive infrared sensors detect infrared radiation from an external source, to which IR sensor 1804 detects “if a human being or other warm body is detected”, Fig. 18A-B and [0106]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yee teaches wherein the ultraviolet radiation source (103/103a, Fig. 18A-B)) is configured to emit radiation of a first spectral range (“conventional UV lamps 102,103 emitting UV light at wavelengths of 185 nm and 254 nm may be used”, [0071] and Fig. 18A-B), and wherein the first spectral range comprises radiation with wavelengths in a range of 100 to 280 nm (“conventional UV lamps 102,103 emitting UV light at wavelengths of 185 nm and 254 nm may be used”, [0071] and Fig. 18A-B).
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM 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, Maris R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758