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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the backpack and the belt pack (claim 1 and dependent claims) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because of the following:
Reference characters “22” (see, e.g., paragraphs 0026, 0031) and “24” (see, e.g., paragraph 0031) have both been used to designate a lens and/or a reflector.
Reference characters “112” (see, e.g., FIGs. 6-7; paragraph 0072) and “120” (see, e.g., FIGs. 4-5; paragraph 0068) have both been used to designate a concave surface.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “112” has been used to designate both a channel (see, e.g., FIGs. 4-5; paragraph 0067) and a concave surface (see, e.g., FIGs. 6-7; paragraph 0072).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 1A: reference character 60
FIGs. 1E, 1G: reference character 70
FIG. 4: reference character 132
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0031, line 2: “visible LEDs 12” should read “visible LEDs [[12]]18”;
Paragraph 0054, line 2: “Figure 9” should read “Figure [[9]]3”;
Paragraph 0058, line 4: “body 112” should read “body [[112]]110”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: “radian flux” should read “radiant flux”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification fails to describe “said beltpack includes a strap configured to strap to a user’s leg” as currently claimed. The specification discloses that the holster includes a strap configured to “secure the holster with respect to the user’s leg” (paragraph 0050). However, no disclosure is made of the belt pack having a strap for attaching to a user’s leg.
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 5, 16-17, and 19 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said front" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “said front” to mean “a front of said housing”.
Claims 16, 17, and 19 recite the limitation “said power supply” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “said power supply” to mean “said power source”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurling et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0338868 A1), hereinafter Spurling, in view of Weeks, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0320872 A1), hereinafter Weeks, Jr.
Regarding claim 1, Spurling discloses a UVC light projection unit for providing UVC illumination (FIG. 1), said UVC light projection unit comprising:
a housing (FIG. 1, element 118);
a plurality of light sources (FIG. 1, element 116) supported by said housing (paragraph 0023), said plurality of light sources comprising a first group of light sources comprising a plurality of UVC sources (paragraph 0021), at least said first group of light sources comprising the plurality of UVC sources are arranged in an array (paragraph 0021, lines 16-26), said plurality of UVC sources configured to emit light having a wavelength in the range of 250 to 280 nm (paragraph 0002);
a pair of handles connected to said housing for holding said housing (FIG. 1, handles 120, 121) such that said plurality of light sources project light in a forward direction (paragraphs 0028, 0040); and
a backpack, a belt pack, or holster (paragraph 0025) comprising a power source for providing electrical power to said plurality of light sources (paragraph 0027).
Spurling fails to disclose that the plurality of UVC sources is a plurality of UVC light emitting diodes (LEDs); and a second group of light sources comprising a plurality of visible light emitting diodes.
However, Weeks, Jr. discloses that the plurality of UVC sources is a plurality of UVC light emitting diodes (LEDs) (paragraph 0019), and a second group of light sources comprising a plurality of visible light emitting diodes (paragraph 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling to include that the plurality of UVC sources is a plurality of UVC light emitting diodes (LEDs), and a second group of light sources comprising a plurality of visible light emitting diodes, based on the teachings of Weeks, Jr. that LEDs have improved durability and efficiency, and produce minimal heat (Weeks, Jr., paragraph 0004); and the combination of groups of UVC LEDs and visible light LEDs enables system flexibility in response to different operating conditions (Weeks, Jr., paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 2, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Weeks, Jr. discloses that said housing comprises anodized aluminum (paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said housing comprises anodized aluminum, based on the additional teachings of Weeks, Jr. that anodized aluminum provides protection for sensitive system components (Weeks, Jr., paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 3, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Spurling discloses that said housing has a front (FIG. 1, distal end 106) and back (FIG. 1, base 104) and sides (FIG. 1, sides extending between distal end 106 and base 104), said handles comprising first and second handles on said sides, respectively (FIG. 1: handles 120 and 121 are located on the top side and bottom side of the apparatus).
Regarding claim 5, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Weeks, Jr. discloses that said front has a rectangular profile (FIG. 6 shows that the front of unit 502, the front comprising the light sources 525, 530, is rectangular).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have considered it an obvious matter of design choice to include that said front has a rectangular profile, since the applicant has not disclosed that said rectangular profile solves any problem or is for a particular reason. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Spurling discloses that said UVC light projection unit comprises a holster comprising said power supply (Merriam-Webster.com defines ‘holster’ as ‘a case for carrying a usually small item on the person’; therefore, the backpack disclosed in paragraph 0027 of Spurling meets the claimed limitation of a holster).
Regarding claim 17, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Spurling discloses that said UVC light projection unit comprises a beltpack comprising said power supply (paragraphs 0025, 0027).
Regarding claim 18, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Spurling discloses that said beltpack includes a strap configured to strap to a user’s leg (paragraphs 0025, 0027).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Spurling teaches the structural limitations of the beltpack, i.e., a beltpack comprising a power source, wherein said beltpack includes attachment straps (Spurling, paragraphs 0025, 0027). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 19, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Spurling discloses that said UVC light projection unit comprises a backpack comprising said power supply (paragraph 0027).
Claims 4 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as respectively applied to claims 3 and 1 above, and further in view of Klipstein et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0007777 A1), hereinafter Klipstein.
Regarding claim 4, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 3 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 3.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said handles comprise plastic.
However, Klipstein discloses that said handles comprise plastic (paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said handles comprise plastic, based on the teachings of Klipstein that this provides a safe, non-conductive gripping surface (Klipstein, paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 9, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said plurality of UVC LEDs are configured with respective lenses configured to receive UVC light from said UVC LEDs and project said UVC light forward.
However, Klipstein discloses that said plurality of UVC LEDs (paragraph 0149) are configured with respective lenses configured to receive UVC light from said UVC LEDs and project said UVC light forward (paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said plurality of UVC LEDs are configured with respective lenses configured to receive UVC light from said UVC LEDs and project said UVC light forward, based on the teachings of Klipstein that this improves collimation and/or focusing of the light as desired (Klipstein, paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 10, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said plurality of UVC LEDs are configured with respective reflectors configured to receive UVC light from said UVC LEDs and project said UVC light forward.
However, Klipstein discloses that said plurality of UVC LEDs (paragraph 0149) are configured with respective reflectors configured to receive UVC light from said UVC LEDs and project said UVC light forward (paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said plurality of UVC LEDs are configured with respective reflectors configured to receive UVC light from said UVC LEDs and project said UVC light forward, based on the teachings of Klipstein that this enables the production of a very intense beam (Klipstein, paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 11, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said plurality of UVC LEDs are configured with respective optical elements comprising a combination of a lens and a reflector configured to receive UVC light from said UVC LEDs and project said UVC light forward.
However, Klipstein discloses that said plurality of UVC LEDs (paragraph 0149) are configured with respective optical elements comprising a combination (paragraph 0056) of a lens (paragraph 0014) and a reflector configured to receive UVC light from said UVC LEDs and project said UVC light forward (paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said plurality of UVC LEDs are configured with respective optical elements comprising a combination of a lens and a reflector configured to receive UVC light from said UVC LEDs and project said UVC light forward, based on the teachings of Klipstein that this enables the production of a very intense beam (Klipstein, paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 12, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said plurality of visible LEDs are configured with respective lens configured to receive visible light from said visible LEDs and project said visible light forward.
However, Klipstein discloses that said plurality of visible LEDs (paragraph 0077) are configured with respective lens configured to receive visible light from said visible LEDs and project said visible light forward (paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said plurality of visible LEDs are configured with respective lens configured to receive visible light from said visible LEDs and project said visible light forward, based on the teachings of Klipstein that this improves collimation and/or focusing of the light as desired (Klipstein, paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 13, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said plurality of visible LEDs are configured with respective reflectors configured to receive visible light from said visible LEDs and project said visible light forward.
However, Klipstein discloses that said plurality of visible LEDs (paragraph 0077) are configured with respective reflectors configured to receive visible light from said visible LEDs and project said visible light forward (paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said plurality of visible LEDs are configured with respective reflectors configured to receive visible light from said visible LEDs and project said visible light forward, based on the teachings of Klipstein that this enables the production of a very intense beam (Klipstein, paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 14, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said plurality of visible LEDs are configured with respective optical elements comprising a combination of a lens and a reflector configured to receive visible light from said visible LEDs and project said visible light forward.
However, Klipstein discloses that said plurality of visible LEDs (paragraph 0077) are configured with respective optical elements comprising a combination (paragraph 0056) of a lens (paragraph 0014) and a reflector configured to receive visible light from said visible LEDs and project said visible light forward (paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said plurality of visible LEDs are configured with respective optical elements comprising a combination of a lens and a reflector configured to receive visible light from said visible LEDs and project said visible light forward, based on the teachings of Klipstein that this enables the production of a very intense beam (Klipstein, paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 15, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said power source comprises one or more batteries.
However, Klipstein discloses that said power source comprises one or more batteries (paragraph 0050).
The disclosure of Klipstein demonstrates that the function of batteries is known in the art of ultraviolet light projection. Klipstein also shows that substituting a battery for another power source in an ultraviolet light projection system yields the predictable result of supplying a known amount of power to LEDs (Klipstein, paragraphs 0048-0050). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that the power sources comprises one or more batteries because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collet et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0305159 A1), hereinafter Collet.
Regarding claim 6, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs are included in said array.
However, Collet discloses that said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs are included in said array (paragraph 0035, lines 26-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs are included in said array, based on the teachings of Collet that this beneficially enables a visual indicator of where UVC light is being emitted (Collet, paragraph 0038).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barrett et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0186717 A1), hereinafter Barrett.
Regarding claim 7, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said array in which said first group of light sources comprising plurality of UVC LEDs are arranged is a hexagonal array.
However, Barrett discloses that said array in which said first group of light sources comprising plurality of UVC sources (paragraph 0125) are arranged is a hexagonal array (paragraph 0131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include that said array in which said first group of light sources comprising plurality of UVC LEDs are arranged is a hexagonal array, based on the teachings of Barrett that this results in tightly packed emission beams for higher intensity (Barrett, paragraph 0131).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. and Barrett as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Collet.
Regarding claim 8, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. and Barrett as applied to claim 7 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 7, including that the array is hexagonal (Barrett, paragraph 0131).
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. and Barrett fails to disclose that said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs is included in said hexagonal array.
However, Collet discloses that said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs is included in said array (paragraph 0035, lines 26-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. and Barrett to include that said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs is included in said hexagonal array, based on the teachings of Collet that this beneficially enables a visual indicator of where UVC light is being emitted (Collet, paragraph 0038).
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grenon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,007,292 B1), hereinafter Grenon.
Regarding claim 20, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said plurality of UVC light LEDs range in radian flux from 50 to 2500 mW.
However, Grenon discloses that said plurality of UVC light LEDs range in radian flux from 50 to 2500 mW (column 9, lines 18-20).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case at hand, Grenon teaches a radiant flux of 60 to 80 mW, which lies inside the claimed range of 50 to 2500 mW. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to meet the claimed range of radiant flux.
Regarding claim 22, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said plurality of UVC LEDs are configured to emit light having a peak wavelength in the range of 260 to 280 nm.
However, Grenon discloses that said plurality of UVC LEDs are configured to emit light having a peak wavelength in the range of 260 to 280 nm (column 9, lines 22-23).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case at hand, Grenon teaches a peak wavelength of 265 nm, which lies inside the claimed range of 260 to 280 nm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to meet the claimed range of peak wavelengths.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hozey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0347328 A1), hereinafter Hozey.
Regarding claim 21, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose that said plurality of UVC light LEDs range in radian flux from 1000 to 2000 mW.
However, Hozey discloses that said plurality of UVC light LEDs range in radian flux from 1000 to 2000 mW (paragraph 0029).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case at hand, Hozey teaches a range of 1 Watt to 5 Watts (1000 mW to 5000 mW), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1000 mW to 2000 mW. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to meet the claimed range of radiant flux.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0207475 A1), hereinafter Kaler.
Regarding claim 23, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. fails to disclose a visible color laser configured to direct a beam forward said UVC light projection unit.
However, Kaler discloses a visible color laser configured to direct a beam forward said UVC light projection unit (paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. to include a visible color laser configured to direct a beam forward said UVC light projection unit, based on the teachings of Kaler that this produces a visual warning of where UV light is being emitted (Kaler, paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 24, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. and Kaler as applied to claim 23 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 23.
In addition, Kaler discloses that said visible color laser is located in the middle of said array (paragraph 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. and Kaler to include that said visible color laser is located in the middle of said array, based on the additional teachings of Kaler that this enables flexibility for different types of light to be irradiated to closer or more distant targets (Kaler, paragraphs 0063-0064).
Regarding claim 25, Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. and Kaler as applied to claim 23 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 23.
Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. and Kaler fails to disclose that said visible color laser projects a beam forward said UVC light projection unit that is centered about the output beam of the plurality of UVC light sources.
However, Kaler discloses that said visible color laser (paragraph 0025) projects a beam (paragraph 0063) forward said UVC light projection unit that is centered about the output beam of the plurality of UVC light sources (paragraph 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Spurling in view of Weeks, Jr. and Kaler to include that said visible color laser projects a beam forward said UVC light projection unit that is centered about the output beam of the plurality of UVC light sources, based on the additional teachings of Kaler that this enables flexibility for different types of light to be irradiated to closer or more distant targets (Kaler, paragraphs 0063-0064).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
He et al. (CN Patent No. 214147812 U), hereinafter He (English machine translation provided), teaches that said array in which said first group of light sources comprising plurality of UVC LEDs are arranged is a hexagonal array.
Sugiyama (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0363941 A1), hereinafter Sugiyama, teaches a visible color laser configured to direct a beam forward said UVC light projection unit, wherein said visible color laser is located in the middle of said array.
Maa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0308293 A1), hereinafter Maa, teaches a UVC light projection unit for providing UVC illumination, said UVC light projection unit comprising: a housing; a plurality of light sources supported by said housing, said plurality of light sources comprising a first group of light sources comprising a plurality of UVC light emitting diodes (LEDs) and a second group of light sources comprising a plurality of visible light emitting diodes.
UVC Science, “PHASE-R Datasheet”, accessed through Internet Archive Wayback Machine, capture recorded of uvcscience.net 22 May 2022.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881