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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0062463) in view of Ramer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0318168) which will be referred to as ‘168 herein.
Concerning claim 1, Ramer discloses a sterilization lamp (paragraph 20) comprising:
An ultraviolet light unit including an ultraviolet light source (paragraph 29), and a filter for filtering wavelengths harmful to humans (paragraph 33);
A lighting unit including an LED light source (paragraph 36); and
A control unit which controls on and off of the ultraviolet light unit and the lighting unit and supplies power (paragraphs 21-26, 31, 37, 38, 68, 72, 76, 80).
With respect to claim 10, Ramer also discloses a sterilization lamp comprising:
A planar lamp in which at least one or more light sources emitting 222 nm ultraviolet rays are disposed at an inner region (paragraphs 33 and 35);
A filter to filter light having wavelengths harmful to humans (paragraphs 33 and 35); and
A power supply unit supplying power to the lamp (paragraphs 30, 31 and 39).
Concerning claims 1 & 10, Ramer does not appear to disclose that the filter is coated on a light exiting surface of the lamp to filter light having wavelengths of 230 to 270 nm, emitted from the ultraviolet light source, wherein the filter includes a nanophosphor which is 3 nm or less, and the nanophosphor converts the light having wavelengths of 230 to 270 nm into light of another wavelength. ‘168 discloses a sterilization lamp that includes a light source that emits 222 nm ultraviolet rays to sterilize air and object disposed at an inner region (paragraphs 27 & 38; Figure 1), and a filter to filter certain wavelengths of light from the light source (paragraph 29). The reference continues to disclose that the filter is coated (paragraph 45) on a light exiting surface (122) of the lamp to filter light having wavelengths of 230 to 270 nm, emitted from the ultraviolet light source, wherein the filter includes a nanophosphor that converts the light having wavelengths of 230 to 270 nm into light of another wavelength in order to rid light of wavelengths that may be harmful to humans (paragraph 49). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the filter of Ramer on a light exiting surface of the ultraviolet lamp emitting UV rays, wherein the filter includes a nanophosphor that converts the light having wavelengths of 230-270 nm into light of another wavelength in order to rid light of wavelengths that may be harmful to humans as exemplified by ‘168.
Concerning the limitation of the size of the nanophosphor being 3 nm of less, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As such, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize nanophosphors having a size of 3 nm or less in order to provide the desired filtering capabilities of said nanophosphors for a desired particular wavelength range, as the size of said nanophosphors is in direct correlation to the wavelength ranges of emitted UV light that is allowed to pass therethrough; wherein such would be optimized during routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in order to create a desired emitted wavelength range that interacts with airflow and surfaces for a particular application. Only the expected results would be attained (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, claims 1 & 10 are not patentable over Ramer in view of ‘168.
With respect to claim 3, Ramer continues to disclose that the control unit controls the ultraviolet light unit to operate for a first time period, and wherein in the middle of the operation during the first time, the control unit controls the ultraviolet light to include one or more rest periods in which the ultraviolet light unit is turned off for a second time period (paragraph 58).
Concerning claim 4, Ramer further discloses that the control unit is capable of turning off the ultraviolet light unit and display replacement information for the ultraviolet light unit when the cumulative operating time of the ultraviolet light unit is greater than or equal to a threshold value (paragraph 93).
With respect to claim 6, Ramer also discloses:
A switching element for turning on and off the ultraviolet light unit (paragraphs 31 & 38); and
A temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of a sterilization lamp, and wherein the control unit turns off the ultraviolet light unit when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is greater than or equal to a threshold value (paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 7, Ramer discloses a PIR sensor which detects motion in a predetermined region, wherein the control unit turns on the ultraviolet light unit according to motion detection of the PIR sensor (paragraphs 50 & 51).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0062463) in view of ‘168 (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0318168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dayton (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0121007).
Ramer is relied upon as set forth above. While Ramer continues to disclose a display unit for displaying operation information of the ultraviolet light unit, wherein it is displayed in a image when the ultraviolet light unit is operating (Figures 4A-D), and wherein a second display is displayed when the cumulative operating time of the ultraviolet light unit is greater than or equal to a threshold value (Figure 5) as set forth in paragraphs 89-93; the reference does not appear to disclose first and second colors utilized to display the displays, in which the second color flickers when the ultraviolet light unit is not operating normally. Dayton discloses a sterilization lamp that includes an ultraviolet light source for emitting UV light to disinfect an area and objects located therein as shown in Figure 1 (Abstract). The reference continues to disclose a display unit for displaying operation information of the ultraviolet light source (Figures 2 & 4), wherein first and second colors are utilized to display different operating statuses of said lamp, and wherein the second color flickers when the ultraviolet light source is not operating normally (paragraph 56). The first and second colors for status indication, as well as the second color flickering when the ultraviolet light source is not operating properly is provided in order to allow the operator the ability to acknowledge the operational status of the lamp in an easier and more convenient fashion (paragraphs 54-62). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide first and second colors utilized to display the displays in Ramer, in which the second color flickers when the ultraviolet light unit is not operating normally in order to allow the operator the ability to acknowledge the operational status of the lamp in an easier and more convenient fashion as exemplified by Dayton.
Therefore, claim 5 is not patentable over Ramer in view of ‘168 and Dayton.
Claims 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0062463) in view of ‘168 (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0318168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0230271).
Ramer is relied upon as set forth above. While Ramer continues to disclose a housing (10) in which the ultraviolet light unit (16), the lighting unit (18) and the control unit are disposed therein (Figure 1); the reference does not appear to disclose that the housing includes a cover glass located at an upper portion of the housing and being formed with an ultraviolet light unit accommodating unit for accommodating the ultraviolet light unit at the center thereof, and wherein the ultraviolet light unit accommodating unit includes a coupling unit to which the ultraviolet light unit is detachably attachable, and wherein the LED light source is disposed at a lower portion of a circumferential region of the ultraviolet light unit accommodating unit of the cover glass. Choi discloses a sterilization lamp that includes an ultraviolet light unit (20b), a lighting unit (20a), and a control unit to control power to the ultraviolet light unit and the lighting unit (paragraph 24). The reference continues to disclose a housing (10) that includes a cover glass (30) located at an upper portion of the housing (paragraph 100; Figures 1, 2 & 4) and being formed with an ultraviolet light unit accommodating unit (21a/21b; paragraph 81) for accommodating the ultraviolet light unit (20a) at the center thereof (Figures 1, 2 & 4), and wherein the ultraviolet light unit accommodating unit (21a/21b) includes a coupling unit to which the ultraviolet light unit is detachably attachable (paragraphs 85 & 86), and wherein the light source (light source 23 shown on far left in Figures 1-4) is disposed at a lower portion of a circumferential region of the ultraviolet light unit accommodating unit (21a/21b) of the cover glass as shown in Figures 1-4. Choi discloses that the housing including the cover glass and associated configuration of the ultraviolet light unit and lighting unit in order to create a portable compact sterilization lamp that can be utilized and mounted in a plurality of desired locations to advantageously emit both visible and ultraviolet light to a chosen location (paragraphs 29-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the housing of Ramer with a cover glass located at an upper portion of the housing and being formed with an ultraviolet light unit accommodating unit for accommodating the ultraviolet light unit at the center thereof; wherein the ultraviolet light unit accommodating unit includes a coupling unit to which the ultraviolet light unit is detachably attachable, and wherein the LED light source is disposed at a lower portion of a circumferential region of the ultraviolet light unit accommodating unit of the cover glass in order to create a portable compact sterilization lamp that can be utilized and mounted in a plurality of desired locations to advantageously emit both visible and ultraviolet light to a chosen location as exemplified by Choi.
Thus, claims 8 & 9 are not patentable over Ramer in view of ‘168 and Choi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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. More specifically, the closest prior art of Ramer in view of ‘168, alone or in combination, does not disclose that the nanophosphor includes LaPO4:Ce3+.Tb3+.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799