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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 21 August 2026, with respect to the drawings, the specification, and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the specification and claims 20-21, the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to reference characters 22 and 24 have been fully considered but are not persuasive; reference character 22 has been used to designate both a lens and/or reflector for a UVC light source (e.g., paragraph 0026, “the individual UVC light sources 12 include respective lenses and/or reflectors 22”) and a lens and/or reflector for a visible light source (e.g., paragraph 0031, “the individual visible light sources 16 include respective lenses and/or reflectors 22”). Reference character 24 is also used to designate a lens and/or reflector for a visible light source (e.g., paragraph 0031, “the visible light sources 16 include a lens and/or a reflector 24”). The objections to reference characters 22 and 24 under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) are maintained. The remainder of the objections to the drawings are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in applicant’s remarks filed 21 August 2026 (see page 15) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list…must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 26-27 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 26 recites 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 27 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 26.
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, 6-8, 13, 15, 20, 22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0331465 A1), hereinafter Childress, in view of Grenon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,007,292 B1), hereinafter Grenon.
Regarding claim 1, Childress discloses a UVC light projection unit for providing UVC illumination, said UVC light projection unit comprising:
a housing (FIG. 24, element 312);
a plurality of light sources (paragraph 0145, lines 5-8; element 340) supported by said housing (paragraph 0145, lines 3-5), said plurality of light sources comprising a first group of light sources comprising a plurality of UVC (paragraph 0145, last sentence) light emitting diodes (LEDs) (paragraph 0145, lines 5-8), said plurality of UVC LEDs configured to emit light having a wavelength in the range of 250 to 280 nm (paragraph 0088, lines 9-10, 254 nm is disclosed in paragraph [0089] which is within the claimed range);
a pair of handles connected to said housing (FIG. 24, handles 332);
a holster (FIG. 23, element 304) configured to hold a power source for providing electrical power to said plurality of light sources (paragraph 0131, lines 3-7), and
a belt configured to be supported proximal a waist or hip of a user (FIG. 39, element 392), said holster configured to be supported on said belt (paragraph 0161),
wherein said holster has a length and a width, said length (FIG. 38, vertical dimension) longer than said width (FIG. 38, horizontal dimension), said belt extending across said width of said holster when said holster is supported on said belt (FIG. 39).
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, Childress teaches the structural limitations of the handles and the housing, i.e., a pair of handles connected to said housing (FIG. 24, handles 332). Therefore, the limitation “a pair of handles connected to said housing for holding said housing such that said plurality of light sources project light in a forward direction” are met.
Childress fails to disclose a second group of light sources comprising a plurality of visible light emitting diodes, wherein at least said first group of light sources comprising the plurality of UVC LEDs are arranged in an array.
However, Grenon discloses a second group of light sources comprising a plurality of visible light emitting diodes (FIG. 2, visible light LEDs 208), wherein at least said first group of light sources comprising the plurality of UVC LEDs are arranged in an array (FIG. 2, UVC LEDs 110).
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 Childress to include a second group of light sources comprising a plurality of visible light emitting diodes, wherein at least said first group of light sources comprising the plurality of UVC LEDs are arranged in an array, based on the teachings of Grenon that the visible light improves user safety (column 14, lines 60-67), and the array arrangement enables independent operation of subgroups of LEDs for greater flexibility or in case of failure of a subgroup (Grenon, column 14, lines 35-44).
Regarding claim 6, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Grenon discloses that said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs are included in said array (FIG. 2, array comprising visible light LEDs 208 and UVC LEDs 110).
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 Childress in view of Grenon to include said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs are included in said array, based on the additional teachings of Grenon that the visible light improves user safety (column 14, lines 60-67), and the array arrangement enables independent operation of subgroups of LEDs for greater flexibility or in case of failure of a subgroup (Grenon, column 14, lines 35-44).
Regarding claim 7, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Grenon discloses that said array in which said first group of light sources comprising plurality of UVC LEDs are arranged is a hexagonal array (FIG. 2: the rows of LEDs are staggered to form a hexagonal array).
The applicant has not provided evidence that the hexagonal shape of the LED array is significant. For example, the instant specification discloses that “in the design shown in Figure 1, UVC light sources 12 / UVC LEDs 14 and the visible light sources 16 / visible LEDs 18 are arranged in a hexagonal array. Other types of arrays or arrangements, however, can be used in the design” (paragraph 0023, emphasis added). 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 Childress in view of Grenon to include that said array in which said first group of light sources comprising plurality of UVC LEDs are arranged is a hexagonal array, because this modification amounts to nothing more than a change in shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 8, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 7 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 7.
In addition, Grenon discloses that said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs is included in said hexagonal array (FIG. 2, array comprising visible light LEDs 208 and UVC LEDs 110).
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 Childress in view of Grenon to include that said second group of light sources comprising said plurality of visible LEDs is included in said hexagonal array, based on the additional teachings of Grenon that the visible light improves user safety (column 14, lines 60-67), and the array arrangement enables independent operation of subgroups of LEDs for greater flexibility or in case of failure of a subgroup (Grenon, column 14, lines 35-44).
Regarding claim 13, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Grenon discloses 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 (column 19, lines 4-7).
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 Childress in view of Grenon 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 additional teachings of Grenon that the reflectors provide greater control of the spread and direction of the emitted light (Grenon, column 19, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 15, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Childress discloses that said power source comprises one or more batteries (paragraph 0131, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 20, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Grenon discloses that said plurality of UVC light LEDs range in radiant flux from 50 to 2500 mW (column 9, lines 15-20).
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 radiant fluxes of 60 mW, 70 mW, or 80 mW, which lie 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 Childress in view of Grenon to meet the claimed range of radiant flux.
Regarding claim 22, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, 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, line 21-23).
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 Childress in view of Grenon to meet the claimed range of peak wavelengths.
Regarding claim 26, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Childress discloses that said holster includes a pocket (FIG. 38, element 378) for holding said power supply (FIG. 38, element 380).
Regarding claim 27, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 26 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 26.
In addition, Childress discloses that said holster includes additional pockets, hooks or loops (paragraph 0127).
Regarding claim 28, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Childress in view of Grenon fails to disclose a particular quantity of light sources.
However, the applicant has not provided evidence that the particular range of 30 to 70 light sources produces a new and unexpected result as compared to a different quantity of light sources. For example, the instant specification discloses that “the UVC light projection unit 10 comprises at least 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 35, 40, 50 UVC light sources 12 and/or UVC LEDs 14 or any number in any range formed by any of these values” (paragraph 0026). 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 Childress in view of Grenon to include that said plurality of light sources comprises from 30 to 70 light sources, because this modification amounts to nothing more than a duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weeks, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0320872 A1), hereinafter Weeks, Jr.
Regarding claim 2, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Childress in view of Grenon fails to disclose that said housing comprises anodized aluminum.
However, 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 Childress in view of Grenon to include that said housing comprises anodized aluminum, based on the teachings of Weeks, Jr. that anodized aluminum provides protection for sensitive system components (Weeks, Jr., paragraph 0055).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Younts (U.S. Patent No. 7,626,187 B2), hereinafter Younts.
Regarding claim 3, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Childress discloses that said housing has a front (FIG. 38, front wall 370) and back and sides (FIG. 38, back and side walls of rear shell 372), said handles comprising first and second handles (FIG. 24, handles 332).
Childress in view of Grenon fails to disclose that said first and second handles are on said sides, respectively.
However, Younts discloses that said first and second handles are on said sides, respectively (FIG. 5B, first and second handles 9 on the left and right sides of housing 6 (FIG. 5A)).
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 Childress in view of Grenon to include that said first and second handles are on said sides, respectively, based on the teachings of Younts that these handles enable easier handling for improved control of the period of exposure (Younts, column 4, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 4, Childress in view of Grenon and Younts as applied to claim 3 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 3.
In addition, Grenon discloses that said handles comprise plastic (column 11, lines 60-62).
The disclosure of Grenon demonstrates that the function of plastic is known in the art of UV sterilization. Grenon also shows that substituting plastic for another material in a UV sterilization apparatus yields the predictable result of improved durability (Grenon, column 13, lines 10-22). “[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 Childress in view of Grenon and Younts to include that said handles comprise plastic 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).
Regarding claim 5, Childress in view of Grenon and Younts as applied to claim 3 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 3.
In addition, Childress discloses that said front has a rectangular profile (FIG. 38, front 370).
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klipstein et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0007777 A1), hereinafter Klipstein.
Regarding claim 9, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Childress in view of Grenon 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 Childress in view of Grenon 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, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
In addition, Childress discloses a reflector configured to receive UVC light and project said UVC light forward (paragraph 0143, reflector 342).
Childress in view of Grenon 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 Childress in view of Grenon 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, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Childress in view of Grenon 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 Childress in view of Grenon 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, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Childress in view of Grenon fails to disclose that said plurality of visible LEDs are configured with respective lenses 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 lenses 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 Childress in view of Grenon to include that said plurality of visible LEDs are configured with respective lenses 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 14, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Childress in view of Grenon 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 Childress in view of Grenon 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN Patent No. 107412887 A1), hereinafter Wang (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 18, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Childress in view of Grenon fails to disclose that said holster includes a strap configured to strap to a user's leg.
However, Wang discloses that said holster includes a strap configured to strap to a user's leg (page 4, second paragraph from the last, leg fixing belt 6).
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 Childress in view of Grenon to include that said holster includes a strap configured to strap to a user's leg, based on the teachings of Wang that the leg strap provides additional security by fitting the apparatus more closely while preventing undesirable interference between parts (Wang, page 4, second paragraph from the last).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress in view of Grenon 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, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Childress in view of Grenon fails to disclose that said plurality of UVC light LEDs range in radiant flux from 1000 to 2000 mW.
However, Hozey discloses that said plurality of UVC light LEDs range in radiant 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 Childress in view of Grenon to meet the claimed range of radiant flux.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress in view of Grenon 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, Childress in view of Grenon as applied to claim 1 discloses the UVC light projection unit of claim 1.
Childress in view of Grenon 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 Childress in view of Grenon 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, Childress in view of Grenon 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 Childress in view of Grenon 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, Childress in view of Grenon 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 (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 Childress in view of Grenon 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
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 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 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights