DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US 10,517,975 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lu et al. discloses a disinfection and illumination lamp, comprising: a light source unit (light source apparatus, 50), comprising a visible light source (warning device, 500), since the warning device (500) may be, for example, a warning light or a warning sound, and a disinfection light source (ultraviolet emitting device, 220); a sensing unit (motion detection device, 400), configured to sense presence of a living being (biological body) within a preset range; and a control unit (processor, 300), respectively connected with the light source unit (50) and the sensing unit (400), wherein the control unit (300) is configured such that after the control unit (300) receives a signal transmitted by the sensing unit (400) sensing the presence of the living being, the visible light source (500) is controlled to emit illumination light, and the disinfection light source (240) is turned off; and after the control unit (300) receives a signal transmitted by the sensing unit (400) not sensing the presence of the living being (biological body), the visible light source (500) is controlled to emit warning light, and the disinfection light source (240) is controlled to emit disinfection light (see Abstract; figure 1; and column 2, line 30 through column 5, line 7).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 10,517,975 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fink et al. (WO 2005/081932 A2).
Regarding claim 10, Lu et al. discloses a disinfection and illumination system, comprising: the disinfection and illumination lamp (see Abstract; figure 1; and column 2, line 30 through column 5, line 7).
Lu et al. fails to disclose a remote control terminal, in communication connection with the disinfection and illumination lamp to remotely control the disinfection and illumination lamp.
Fink et al. discloses a remote computer (not shown) and that monitoring system configurations and operations should be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present discussion (see page 28, line 8 through page 29, line 2).
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 teachings of Lu et al. with the teachings of Fink et al. results in a remote control terminal, in communication connection with the disinfection and illumination lamp to remotely control the disinfection and illumination lamp for remote monitoring and operation of the disinfection and illumination system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 8-9, the prior art references fail to disclose or suggest a disinfection and illumination lamp further comprising an aluminum radiator; and the light source unit comprising a ceramic substrate, and the ceramic substrate being attached to the aluminum radiator for combined heat dissipation; wherein the sensing unit and the light source unit are of a nested structure, wherein the sensing unit is nested in an inner side of the light source unit; comprising: a snap-fit power supply and a lamp housing, and the power supply being snap-fitted with an inner wall of the lamp housing; and wherein the visible light source and the disinfection light source are of a nested structure, and the visible light source is evenly arranged on a periphery of the disinfection light source.
Claims 4-6 depend on claim 3.
Claim 7 depends on claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Wang Claire can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
NATASHA E. YOUNG
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/NATASHA E YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights