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
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 2/17/2026. Currently claims 1-9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 2/17/2026, with respect to the previous objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 2/17/2026, with respect to the previous objection of the claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objection of the claims 1 and 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 2/17/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claim 1-8 and 10 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1-18 and 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-13, filed 2/17/2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Van Bommel
claim(s) 2 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Van Bommel in view of Dikstra
claim(s) 6 and 8 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Van Bommel
claim(s) 9-10 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Van Bommel in view of Dijkstra in view of Jarausch
have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the additional reference of Spivak et al (US 20040075065) as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation “wherein, upon the exposure to the UV light, the lighting fixture provides 390 IU of Vitamin D equivalent production.” and “wherein, upon the exposure to the UVB light, the lighting fixture provides 390 IU of Vitamin D equivalent production.”
First, it appears there maybe a typo or words misplaced/missing which can be interpreted in different ways. For this examination, the claims are interpreted as if written as the following:
“wherein, upon the exposure to the UV light, the lighting fixture promotes the production of equivalent to 390 IU of Vitamin D”.
and
“wherein, upon the exposure to the UVB light, the lighting fixture promotes the production of equivalent to 390 IU of Vitamin D”.
Second the production of equivalent to 390 IU of Vitamin D is dependent on several factors of the individual including at the very least skin type and percentage of total skin exposed. Without these defining these factors about who or what is producing the vitamin D the claim is render indefinite. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(b):
“A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In Miyazaki, the Board held that claims to a large printer were not sufficiently definite because:
The language of claim 1 attempts to claim the height of the paper feeding unit in relation to a user of a specific height who is performing operations on the printer.... Claim 1 fails to specify, however, a positional relationship of the user and the printer to each other.
Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1212. In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655.
On the other hand, a claim limitation specifying that a certain part of a pediatric wheelchair be "so dimensioned as to be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an automobile and one of the seats" was held to be definite. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The court stated that the phrase "so dimensioned" is as accurate as the subject matter permits, noting that the patent law does not require that all possible lengths corresponding to the spaces in hundreds of different automobiles be listed in the patent, let alone that they be listed in the claims.
Third the claim limitation is part of the greater limitation “wherein upon exposure to UV light for 6 hours, and at a distance of 1.8 m from the one or more LEDs, actinic ultraviolet (AUV) is not more than 0.00104W/m2, near ultraviolet (NUV) is not more than 0.00056W/m2, and erythemally weighted ultraviolet-B (EUVB) irradiance is not more than 0.01004W/m2, and wherein, upon the exposure to the UV light, the lighting fixture provides 390 IU of Vitamin D equivalent production.” for claim 1 and
the greater limitation “wherein upon exposure to UVB light for 6 hours, and at a distance of 1.8 m from the multiple LEDs, the actinic ultraviolet (AUV) is not more than 0.00104W/m2, the near ultraviolet (NUV) is not more than 0.00056W /m2, and the erythemally weighted ultraviolet B (EUVB) irradiance is not more than 0.01004W/m2, and wherein, upon the exposure to the UVB light, the lighting fixture provides 390 IU of Vitamin D equivalent production” in claim 9 which have an additional problem.
Note that the claim limitations fail to reference back to UV and UVB radiation specifically from the light sources previously recited in claims as they fail to recite “the UV light” and “the UVB light” which also raises questions as to if is the light from the diodes only or if other UV and UVB light (i.e. ambient light, light from the sun, other diodes, etc.) can recite promote the 390 IU of Vitamin D in 6 hours.
For this examination, the interpretation taken is that that any skin that is capable to produce vitamin D recites promotion of the 390 IU of Vitamin D in 6 hours as it covers all varying types of skin percentages and skin types (i.e. the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claims 2-8 are also rejected based on dependency to claim 1. With respect to claim 8, while claim 8 lists a skin type and exposure amount of skin, this appears to be to an additional particular step in a method and doesn’t seem to specifically further clarify the limitation of claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is rejected based on dependency as well.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (Paper titled: Development of a Safe UVB LED Indoor General Lighting to Support Vitamin D Synthesis in the Human Body… see fully copy provided by the office) hereafter known as Park in view of Spivak et al (US 20040075065) hereafter known as Spivak and Van Bommel et al (US 20180172219) hereafter known as Van Bommel.
Independent claim
Regarding claim 1:
Park discloses
A lighting fixture [see Fig. 1 and pg. 152… “In this paper, a UVB LED indoor general lighting that supports vitamin D synthesis through the indoor lighting environment is presented. The proposed UVB LED indoor general lighting consists of a UVB LED light source module, visible LED panel, power supply module, and controller.”] comprising:
a. light emitting diodes (LEDs} emitting light in the visible wavelength [see Fig. 1b and pg. 152… “a visible LED light source was applied”];
b. one or more LEDs emitting light in the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum having wavelength peak value somewhere between 280-315 nm [see Fig. 1 first peak in spectral irradiance graph…. Please note that UVB light range ends is 315 nm]; and,
at a distance of 1.8 m from the one or more LEDs, actinic ultraviolet (AUV} is not more than 0.00104W/m2, and erythemally weighted ultraviolet-B (EUVB) irradiance is not more than 0.01004W/m2 [see Table 1 of Park which shows specific values for NUV, AUV and EUVB specifically at 64 mA and see pg. 152 under UVB LED Indoor general light… “The input current of the UVB LED was set to 350mA. Figure 1b shows the spectral irradiance of the UVB LED indoor general lighting at a distance of 150cm from the optical probe of the spectroradiometer.” As interpreted in this examination, these values are understood to be the irradiance values at 1.5 m from the light diodes. Since irradiance decreases to 1/4 the irradiance for every doubling of the distance away from the light (the inverse-square law), the irradiance values at 1.8 m are understood to be less than the specific values as claimed here at 1.5 m]
However, Park fails to disclose: specifically a peak value of 303nm and therefore fails to fully disclose “b.one or more LEDs emitting light in the UV spectrum having wavelength peak value of 303nm”. Also, Park fails to disclose “c. a reflector”. Also, Park fails to disclose that the “NUV is not more than 0.00056W/m2” and therefore fails to fully disclose a configuration “wherein upon exposure to UV light for 6 hours, and at a distance of 1.8 m from the one or more LEDs, actinic ultraviolet (AUV} is not more than 0.00104W/m2, near ultraviolet (NUV) is not more than 0.00056W/m2, and erythemally weighted ultraviolet-B (EUVB) irradiance is not more than 0.01004W/m2, and wherein, upon the exposure to the UV light, the lighting fixture provides 390 IU of Vitamin D equivalent production”.
Spivak discloses in the analogous art of ultraviolet radiation devices [see abstract… “A light emitting diode projection apparatus and method is provided for irradiating a subject with ultraviolet radiation, comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes configured to emit ultraviolet radiation and arranged in a matrix, and a power modulation control unit in communication with the diodes.”] including a UV power modulation control unit that can control the intensity, duration and type of ultraviolet radiation to cause an effect related to the sun including tanning and/or production of vitamin D [see abstract… “The power modulation control unit is configured to energize and cause the diodes to emit light and thereby irradiate the subject with ultraviolet radiation sufficient to cause material physical change in the subject. In one embodiment of the invention, the material physical change is skin tanning. The amount, intensity, duration and type of UVR projected by the plurality of UV LED's may be varied by the power modulation control unit responsive to information input into the power modulation control unit.” And para 4… “When strong, naturally occurring sunlight is not obtainable, projecting man-made UV light upon human skin is a desirable substitute. "Tanned" skin is generally considered physically attractive, and a large market exists to serve people with artificially generated UV lighting systems that will provide a tanning effect in the absence of natural sunlight. Other benefits associated with the reception of UV radiation is the production of vitamin D by the skin”] to help better tailor the ultraviolet treatment to individual’s needs [see all of paras 20-21]
Van Bommel discloses in the analogous art of light systems that use both visible light and UV light [see para 1… “This invention relates to lighting systems, in particular for providing visible light as well as UV light, which enables the synthesis in the human body of vitamin D.”] using an aluminum reflector to help provide directional control of the emitted light [see para 50… “The UV LED may be in the form of a package which has an output beam shape which achieves this directional control” and “The beam shaper may be a metallic reflector. Aluminum is a preferred reflector material as it has good reflectivity of UV. It may also be a multi-layer reflector.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Park by using a light with a peak of 303 nm because the peak within of somewhere between 280 and 315 is so close and also sharing characteristics of UVB light that it is prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties [see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Park by including a UV power modulation control unit that can change the type intensity, duration and type of ultraviolet radiation (i.e. thereby reciting the capability to further decrease near UV radiation relative to the other radiations) to help optimize the ultraviolet treatment for production of vitamin D (thereby in combination with peak wavelength since as the same claimed light parameters are able to applied by the apparatus, fully reciting the capability to perform the functional limitation of “wherein upon exposure to UV light for 6 hours, and at a distance of 1.8 m from the one or more LEDs, actinic ultraviolet (AUV) is not more than 0.00104W/m2, near ultraviolet (NUV) is not more than 0.00056W/m2, and erythemally weighted ultraviolet-B (EUVB) irradiance is not more than 0.01004W/m2, and wherein, upon the exposure to the UV light, the lighting fixture provides 390 IU of Vitamin D equivalent production as it has been interpreted as outlined under the 112(b) section)
It would have been obvious to further modify Park by including an aluminum reflector similar to that disclosed by Van Bommel as this would help provide directional control of light, thereby leading to better localization of treatment light to the desired area.
Regarding claims 3-4: pg. 152 of Park [see “Four UVB LED light source modules with 350mA rated current and 100mW radiant flux from LG Innotek were fixed
onto the UVB LED indoor lighting to provide UVB radiation.”] discloses Park in view of Van Bommel as using 100mW LEDs. Given that the claim fails to specify where (i.e. at the light, 2 meters, etc) the radiant power and total radiant power of the LEDs is at and that radiant power drops to one 1/4 the power for every doubling of the distance away from the light, Park in view of Van Bommel is at the very least capable of reciting these radiant powers at set distances from the diodes and thereby reciting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 5, see rejection to claim 1 above which discloses a reflector made of aluminum.
Regarding claim 7:
A method of providing light in the UVB wavelength for promoting Vitamin D production on exposed skin [see pg. 153 under conclusion section of Park… “The UVB irradiance in the proposed lighting was increased in accordance with the exposure condition of the skin of the animal, and lightings of both groups were turned on only during the lighting time. The results showed that the vitamin D content in the blood were significantly increased in the experimental group compared with the control, which confirms that the UVB LED indoor general lighting proposed in this paper supports body vitamin D synthesis.”],
said method comprising:
a. obtaining at least a lighting fixture as claimed in claim 1 [see rejection to claim 1 above];
b. exposing skin to said lighting fixture, wherein said method promotes Vitamin D production [see pg. 153 under conclusion section of Park… “The UVB irradiance in the proposed lighting was increased in accordance with the exposure condition of the skin of the animal, and lightings of both groups were turned on only during the lighting time. The results showed that the vitamin D content in the blood were significantly increased in the experimental group compared with the control, which confirms that the UVB LED indoor general lighting proposed in this paper supports body vitamin D synthesis.”].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view or Spivak in view of Van Bommel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dijkstra et al (US 20210353953) hereafter known as Dijkstra.
Park in view or Spivak in view of Van Bommel discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Park in view or Spivak in view of Van Bommel is silent as to the beam angle of the LEDs and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the beam angle of one or more LEDs emitting light in the UV spectrum is 30°”.
Dijkstra discloses in the analogous art of ultra-violet and visible light irradiation devices [see para 1… “The present invention relates generally to devices capable of generating and disseminating radiation in Ultra-Violet (UV), visible light, and infrared frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.”] that a known used light angle for light irradiation is a flood beam angle with a 20-50 degree angle [see Fig. 7B and para 80… “FIG. 7B illustrates a flood beam angle (θ.sub.2) of the irradiation device 100 using a second lens having a relatively shorter focal length when compared with the first lens. The second lens used in this embodiment when aligned with the radiation source 116 emits light at the flood beam angle (20 to 50 degrees).”]
Since Park in view or Spivak in view of Van Bommel fails to disclose the angle of the beam and Dijkstra discloses an angle 20-50 degrees is a known angle range for visible and UV light irradiation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Park in view of Van Bommel device to reflect light at a 20-50 degree angle as this is a known angle for irradiation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Park in view or Spivak in view of Van Bommel to specifically reflect light at a 30 degree angle because absent unpredictable results such a modification directly teaches the use of a reflection angle within applicant’s claimed range [see In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997)]
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Van Bommel in view of Spivak as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Jarausch et al (US 20220016437).
Regarding claim 6:
Park in view of Van Bommel discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Park in view of Van Bommel fails to disclose “wherein the visible light brightness of the fixture is in the range of 450-600 lux measured at 1.8m from the light source” as recited by claim 6.
Jarausch discloses in the analogous art of light systems that apply visible and UV light [see abstract… “System and methods to generate and control light for use in therapeutic, aesthetic, disinfection, and other light-related applications in settings where a significant portion of skin is exposed to light (e.g., shower, sauna, locker-room). Characteristics of the light are controlled to simulate specific spectra of natural sunlight and unnatural light and deliver targeted doses of UV light (e.g., for vitamin-D synthesis, boosting the immune system, tanning), UV-C light (e.g., to kill bacteria, viruses, and fungi), visible light “] a light system with diodes [see Figs. 2A-2I element 101 and para 74… “The present disclosure relates generally to systems and methods for generating and using light. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for generating and controlling light having various spectra for therapeutic, aesthetic, disinfection, and other applications”] that produce an adjustable intensity of up to 20000 lux of visible light (i.e. since radiant power drops 4x for every doubling of distance away from the light. Park in view of Van Bommel is at the very least capable of reciting the intensity at 1.8 meters as claimed) for the purpose of treating circadian health [see para 99… “a light recipe focused on circadian health may stipulate that the apparatus deliver an time-of-day appropriate dose of visible light with an intensity of 1,000 lux to 20,000 lux.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Park in view of Van Bommel to modify the visible light diodes to have an adjustable intensity that extends up to 20000 lux similar to that of Jarausch for the purpose of allowing Park in view of Van Bommel to treat circadian health in addition to the conditions treated by the UV light thereby increasing the versatility of Park in view of Van Bommel’s device.
Regarding claim 8:
Park in view of Van Bommel discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 7 as outlined above.
However, Park in view of Van Bommel fails to disclose the specific combination “wherein said method results in production of Vitamin D equivalent to 390IU when skin (type IV) exposure is 18% of total skin”
Jarausch discloses in the analogous art of UV light systems that are directed to stimulate vitamin-D synthesis [see abstract… “System and methods to generate and control light for use in therapeutic, aesthetic, disinfection, and other light-related applications in settings where a significant portion of skin is exposed to light (e.g., shower, sauna, locker-room). Characteristics of the light are controlled to simulate specific spectra of natural sunlight and unnatural light and deliver targeted doses of UV light (e.g., for vitamin-D synthesis, boosting the immune system, tanning), UV-C light (e.g., to kill bacteria, viruses, and fungi), visible light “] that it is known that skin type, amount/ location of exposure of the skin to light (i.e. percentage of skin exposed), amount of irradiance/ intensity, and duration of the application of UV light are factors that influence vitamin D production and that these factors can be modified in combination to optimize a desired effect including achieving a daily dose of vitamin-D which is between 100-1500 IU while minimizing non-desired effects [see para 41… “The term “light recipe” refers to a set of conditions or parameters, such as wavelengths, intensities, exposure time and other light-related conditions that are used to simulate one or more spectral distributions of natural sunlight and/or create any combination of custom natural and/or unnatural light exposures to achieve one or more wanted effects, while reducing or eliminating certain unwanted effects.” And para 93… “A light recipe may be designed, e.g., to deliver an adequate dose of UV-B light to synthesize the users' daily dose of vitamin-D (e.g., 100 IU to 1500 IU)” and “An exemplary recipe may comprise several minutes of UV-B exposure to stimulate vitamin-D synthesis at low, medium, or high levels depending on skin type and configuration (e.g., distance, reflectivity of bath room walls) as determined or measured by any number of sensors, such as cameras, proximity sensors, etc. A recipe may further comprise a time-of-day setting appropriate for visible light for the duration of the shower to affect the circadian stimulus.” And para 97… “Systems and methods described herein deliver benefits at lower doses per-session than natural sunlight and faster than sunlight. For example, to obtain an adequate amount of vitamin-D from summer sunlight when only 15% to 20% of human skin is exposed (face, hands, and arms) requires about 30 minutes of exposure to noon-time sun light. In contrast, when fully exposed (sunbathing) this time drops to 5-10 minutes. The UV spectrum of natural sunlight is not efficient for vitamin-D synthesis, as it delivers >100× more UV-A flux than UV-B flux used for pre-vitamin-D synthesis.”]
Since Jarausch discloses a known dosage of vitamin D is between 100-1500 IU and the adjusting the parameters of skin type, amount of skin exposure (i.e. percentage of skin exposed), duration time (i.e. exposure time) and intensity are known factors for the achieving this production of said dosage of vitamin D while minimizing undesired effects, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to modify Park in view of Spivak in view of Van Bommel similarly to that disclosed by Jarausch by adjusting the parameters of duration time, intensity, percentage of skin exposure based on the skin type to achieve a production of Vitamin D between 100-1500 IU because this a known way to optimize vitamin D syntheses.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Park in view of Spivak in view of Van Bommel in view of Jarausch to achieve said claimed combination of “wherein said method results in production of Vitamin D equivalent to 390IU when skin (type IV) exposure is 18% of total skin” because as explained previously Park in view of Van Bommel in view of Jarausch disclose that skin type, percentage of skin exposure and exposure time are known factors that are involved in the resulting amount of production of vitamin D synthesis in the amount of IU’s and modifying these factors is a known way of optimizing vitamin D synthesis; therefore, absent unpredictable results, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the claimed combination through routine experimentation through the application of known factors to achieve a known result when optimizing vitamin D synthesis.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Van Bommel in view of Spivak in view of Dijkstra in view of Jarausch.
Independent claim
Regarding claim 9:
Park discloses:
A lighting fixture [see Fig. 1 and pg. 152… “In this paper, a UVB LED indoor general lighting that supports vitamin D synthesis through the indoor lighting environment is presented. The proposed UVB LED indoor general lighting consists of a UVB LED light source module, visible LED panel, power supply module, and controller.”] comprising:
a. a LEDs emitting light in the visible wavelength [see Fig. 1b and pg. 152… “a visible LED light source was applied”];
b. 4 LEDs emitting light in the UVB spectrum having wavelength peak value somewhere between 280-315 nm [see pg. 152 of Park… “Four UVB LED light source modules” and Fig. 1 first peak in spectral irradiance graph…. Please note that UVB light range ends is 315 nm]; and,
at a distance of 1.8 m from the one or more LEDs, actinic ultraviolet (AUV} is not more than 0.00104W/m2, and erythemally weighted ultraviolet-B (EUVB) irradiance is not more than 0.01004W/m2 [see Table 1 of Park which shows specific values for NUV, AUV and EUVB specifically at 64 mA and see pg. 152 under UVB LED Indoor general light… “The input current of the UVB LED was set to 350mA. Figure 1b shows the spectral irradiance of the UVB LED indoor general lighting at a distance of 150cm from the optical probe of the spectroradiometer.” As interpreted in this examination, these values are understood to be the irradiance values at 1.5 m from the light diodes. Since irradiance decreases to 1/4 the irradiance for every doubling of the distance away from the light (the inverse-square law), the irradiance values at 1.8 m are understood to be less than the specific values as claimed here at 1.5 m]
the radiant power of a LED emitting light in the UV spectrum is 3.3mW [see pg. 152 of Park…see “Four UVB LED light source modules with 350mA rated current and 100mW radiant flux from LG Innotek were fixed onto the UVB LED indoor lighting to provide UVB radiation.” discloses Park as using 100mW LEDs. Given that radiant power drops to one 1/4 the power for every doubling of distance away from the light (the inverse-square law), Park is at the very least capable of reciting these radiant powers at set distances from the diodes and thereby reciting the claimed limitation.]
However, Park fails to disclose specifically, a peak value of 303nm and only 4 LEDs in the UVB spectrum and therefore fails to disclose “b. 12 LEDs emitting light in the UVB spectrum having wavelength peak value of 303nm;”. Also, Park only discloses one LED emitting visible wavelengths and, thus, fails fully to disclose “a. multiple LEDs emitting light in the visible wavelength. Also, Park fails to disclose c. an aluminum reflector”, “wherein the beam angle of LEDs emitting light in the UVB spectrum is 30°”, “and the visible light brightness of the fixture is 500 lux measured at 1.8m from the light source” as claimed. Finally, Park fails to discloses a near ultraviolet light within the range claimed and thus fails to fully disclose “wherein upon exposure to UVB light for 6 hours, and at a distance of 1.8 m from the one or more LEDs, actinic ultraviolet (AUV} is not more than 0.00104W/m2, near ultraviolet (NUV) is not more than 0.00056W/m2, and erythemally weighted ultraviolet-B (EUVB) irradiance is not more than 0.01004W/m2, and wherein, upon the exposure to the UVB light, the lighting fixture provides 390 IU of Vitamin D equivalent production”.
Spivak discloses in the analogous art of ultraviolet radiation devices [see abstract… “A light emitting diode projection apparatus and method is provided for irradiating a subject with ultraviolet radiation, comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes configured to emit ultraviolet radiation and arranged in a matrix, and a power modulation control unit in communication with the diodes.”] including a UV power modulation control unit that can control the intensity, duration and type of ultraviolet radiation to cause an effect related to the sun including tanning and/or production of vitamin D [see abstract… “The power modulation control unit is configured to energize and cause the diodes to emit light and thereby irradiate the subject with ultraviolet radiation sufficient to cause material physical change in the subject. In one embodiment of the invention, the material physical change is skin tanning. The amount, intensity, duration and type of UVR projected by the plurality of UV LED's may be varied by the power modulation control unit responsive to information input into the power modulation control unit.” And para 4… “When strong, naturally occurring sunlight is not obtainable, projecting man-made UV light upon human skin is a desirable substitute. "Tanned" skin is generally considered physically attractive, and a large market exists to serve people with artificially generated UV lighting systems that will provide a tanning effect in the absence of natural sunlight. Other benefits associated with the reception of UV radiation is the production of vitamin D by the skin”] to help better tailor the ultraviolet treatment to individual’s needs [see all of paras 20-21]
Van Bommel discloses in the analogous art of light systems that use both visible light and UV light [see para 1… “This invention relates to lighting systems, in particular for providing visible light as well as UV light, which enables the synthesis in the human body of vitamin D.”] using an aluminum reflector to help provide directional control of the emitted light [see para 50… “The UV LED may be in the form of a package which has an output beam shape which achieves this directional control” and “The beam shaper may be a metallic reflector. Aluminum is a preferred reflector material as it has good reflectivity of UV. It may also be a multi-layer reflector.”].
Dijkstra discloses in the analogous art of ultra-violet and visible light irradiation devices [see para 1… “The present invention relates generally to devices capable of generating and disseminating radiation in Ultra-Violet (UV), visible light, and infrared frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.”] that a known used light angle for light irradiation is a flood beam angle with a 20-50 degree angle [see Fig. 7B and para 80… “FIG. 7B illustrates a flood beam angle (θ.sub.2) of the irradiation device 100 using a second lens having a relatively shorter focal length when compared with the first lens. The second lens used in this embodiment when aligned with the radiation source 116 emits light at the flood beam angle (20 to 50 degrees).”]
Jarausch discloses in the analogous art of light systems that apply visible and UV light [see abstract… “System and methods to generate and control light for use in therapeutic, aesthetic, disinfection, and other light-related applications in settings where a significant portion of skin is exposed to light (e.g., shower, sauna, locker-room). Characteristics of the light are controlled to simulate specific spectra of natural sunlight and unnatural light and deliver targeted doses of UV light (e.g., for vitamin-D synthesis, boosting the immune system, tanning), UV-C light (e.g., to kill bacteria, viruses, and fungi), visible light “] a light system with more than 12 light diodes [see Figs. 2A-2I element 101 and para 74… “The present disclosure relates generally to systems and methods for generating and using light. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for generating and controlling light having various spectra for therapeutic, aesthetic, disinfection, and other applications”] that produce light in ranges including capability of producing UVB range of 303 nm and/or visible light and an [see para 44… “ranges of wavelengths generated by light source 101 may be controlled by light source 101 itself, e.g., by utilizing narrow band LEDs or lasers, by utilizing conversion materials, such as phosphors or quantum-dots, or by utilizing optical filters. Any number of light sources 101 may be grouped into one or more electrical channels that each may be associated with light emission of a specific wavelength or range of wavelengths. For example, one channel may control the emission of UV-B light having wavelengths ranging from 280 nm to 320 nm, another channel may control the emission of IR light ranging from 700 nm to 1500 nm, and yet another channel may control the emission of visible light ranging from 380 nm to 740 nm.”] with an adjustable intensity of up to 20000 lux for visible light (i.e. Since intensity drops to ¼ the power for every doubling of distance away from the light, this is at the very least capable of reciting the intensity at 1.8 meters as claimed) for the purpose of treating circadian health [see para 99… “a light recipe focused on circadian health may stipulate that the apparatus deliver an time-of-day appropriate dose of visible light with an intensity of 1,000 lux to 20,000 lux.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Park by using a light with a peak of 303 nm because the peak within of somewhere between 280 and 315 is so close and also sharing characteristics of UVB light that it is prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties [see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Park by including a UV power modulation control unit that can change the type intensity, duration and type of ultraviolet radiation (i.e. thereby reciting the capability to further decrease near UV radiation relative to the other radiations) to help optimize the ultraviolet treatment for production of vitamin D (i.e. thereby in combination with peak wavelength since as the same claimed light parameters are able to applied by the apparatus, fully reciting the capability to perform the functional limitation of “wherein upon exposure to UVB light for 6 hours, and at a distance of 1.8 m from the one or more LEDs, actinic ultraviolet (AUV) is not more than 0.00104W/m2, near ultraviolet (NUV) is not more than 0.00056W/m2, and erythemally weighted ultraviolet-B (EUVB) irradiance is not more than 0.01004W/m2, and wherein, upon the exposure to the UVB light, the lighting fixture provides 390 IU of Vitamin D equivalent production as it has been interpreted as outlined under the 112(b) section)
It would have been obvious to further modify Park by including an aluminum reflector similar to that disclosed by Van Bommel as this would help provide directional control of light, thereby leading to better localization of treatment light to the desired area.
Since Park in view of Van Bommel fails to disclose the angle of reflection and Dijkstra discloses an angle 20-50 degrees is a known angle range for visible and UV light irradiation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Park in view of Van Bommel device to reflect light at a 20-50 degree angle as this is a known angle for irradiation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Park in view of Van Bommel to specifically reflect light at a 30 degree angle because absent unpredictable results such a modification directly teaches the use of a reflection angle within applicant’s claimed range [see In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Park in view of Van Bommel to modify the light diodes to include additional diodes able to produce UVB light and visible light (i.e. thereby reciting “multiple LEDs emitting light in the visible wavelength” and “12 LEDs emitting light in the UVB spectrum having wavelength peak value of 303nm”) and have an adjustable intensity that extends up to 20000 lux similar to that of Jarausch for the purpose of allowing Park in view of Van Bommel to treat circadian health in addition to the conditions treated by the UV light thereby increasing the versatility of Park in view of Van Bommel’s device.
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 SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights