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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakurai et al (JP 2020-103629 A).
Sakurai was disclosed by applicant on an IDS. A machine translation of the description is provided with this action.
With respect to claim 1, Sakurai teaches a fluid sterilization device which includes a light source configured to emit an ultraviolet ray in the form of a mounting substrate (7), (20b), and/or (23), light emitting element/LED (6), and lid portion (8) for transmitting light [0018, Fig. 2]; the light is transmitted into a channel space through which a fluid flows (11) [0025, Fig. 2]. Additionally, the cover member (8) as well as other parts of the structure serve to conduct heat from the LED and exchange it with the flowing fluid in the system, thereby suppressing overheating [0035, Fig. 4]. In view of this, the system of Sakurai anticipates the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
338
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Sakurai teaches an embodiment in which the LED section, which is within a housing/case including a bottom surface (23), side surfaces (23a), and an opening for the cover (8), is itself fixed to a fixing surface (20b) via a bottom surface; see [0047, Fig. 10].
PNG
media_image3.png
350
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, the package case e.g. via walls (23a) is in contact with fluid flowing in the channel space [Fig. 4]
With respect to claim 8, Sakurai teaches a channel broadly bounded by a base body (3) which may be tubular (cylindrical), with the light source unit covering one end [0019, Fig. 2].
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al (CN 208087261 U).
Tanaka was disclosed by applicant on an IDS. A machine translation of the description is provided with this action.
Tanaka teaches a fluid sterilization device [0002] with a light source configured to emit an ultraviolet ray (23) [0079], a channel space (13) that the rays enter to illuminate fluid flowing therethrough; the LED package includes a mounting substrate 17b-4 for mounting the element (23) and its substate (24), and a lid portion (21) for emitting the radiation from the source into the fluid [Fig. 8, 0099]. The package is positioned such that fluid flowing through the device cools the LED package [0103]. This flow progresses from the channel tube to a side opposite the channel tube [Figs. 3, 5, 9] via suitable through holes around the light source unit [0103]. The system of Tanaka therefore anticipates the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image4.png
673
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al in view of Van de Ven et al (US PGPub 2014/0362582 A1).
Sakurai teaches as above, and further teaches the LED package including a plate-shaped substrate (7). Sakurai is silent to an arrangement in which the lid portion is mounted to the substrate with the opening being on the substrate side and the light emitting element within the internal space.
However, Van de Ven teaches a heat transfer arrangement for an LED including a suitable heat pipe structure and a reflector [Abs]; the reflector ensures that a high percentage of the emitted light exists the structure for use [0117] and can be employed in a generally inverted structure consistent with the claims in which the LED (24) is mounted to a plate-shaped substrate (23), (25) under a cover (30) such that the emitted light is reflected by the reflector in a desired direction, and heat from the LED can be directly transferred outside of the device via the substrate and cover [0194, Figs. 3-4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system taught by Sakurai to include an LED arrangement such as that taught by Van de Ven with the LED in an internal space between the substrate and the cover to allow for direct heat transfer to the outer space as well as useful reflection which will increate utilization of the emitted light, as in Van de Ven.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al in view of Lu et al (US PGPub 2017/0162767 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Sakurai teaches as above, and further teaches the LED package including a plate-shaped substrate (7). Sakurai is silent to an arrangement in which the lid portion is mounted to the substrate with the opening being on the substrate side and the light emitting element within the internal space.
However, Lu teaches a package structure for a UV LED and teaches embodiments [Fig. 10] in which the cover is a structure similar to that claimed which carries the opening and mounts to the substrate via that opening, with the LED in the internal space, which provides the benefit of improving the position of a UV shielding layer and thereby reducing the UV damage to the housing and surrounding structures, and further allows for the use of more complicated lens structures if desired [Fig. 10, 0059-0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system taught by Sakurai to include an LED arrangement such as that taught by Lu to gain the benefit of providing more flexibility in the design of the optical structure and, otherwise, reducing the UV degradation of the surrounding housing, as suggested by Lu.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Lu teaches that the space between the LED and the cover may be filled with a material such as silicon oil which will enhance the light transmission of the device [0043-0045] and protect the diode, specifically to prevent water and/or oxygen intrusion. Lu is silent to the thermal conductivity being a consideration, but silicon oil is understood to inherently have a higher thermal conductivity than air and, regardless, Lu is otherwise concerned with heat conduction [0020] such that selection of an appropriately conductive material would at minimum have been obvious. Regardless, inclusion of such material in Sakurai’s device would have been obvious for the reasons discussed by Lu i.e. light transmission and protection.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al in view of Ao et al (JP 2021-041382 A).
Sakurai teaches as above but is silent to a sealing portion as claimed which is in contact with the package case and the inner surface of a light source case, and which covers the mounting substrate but not the lid.
However, Ao teaches a fluid sterilization device using UV with improved heat dissipation [0006] and teaches providing a seal part such as an o-ring or similar packing which is secured between an attachment portion (117) of the LED package section and the inner surface of a cap (12) [Fig. 2B, 0023-0024] and which covers the mounting substrate but sits beneath the cover [0025] and provides a liquid-tight seal of the components when assembled.
It would have been obvious to include a similar structure in Sakurai’s taught system to allow for assembly in a liquid-tight manner between e.g. the cover, cap, substrate, and the like. Ao does not explicitly teach that the material is thermally conductive polymer, however, the use of thermally conductive polymer e.g. PTFE for sealing portions, substrates, and the like is already taught by Sakurai [0029] and it would have been obvious to maintain this for the seal taught by Ao, as the purpose of the designs of both Ao and Sakurai are to enhance heat dissipation.
PNG
media_image5.png
531
463
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al in view of Ochi et al (US PGPub 2018/0244543 A1).
Sakurai teaches as above, but is silent to embodiments in which the light source unit includes a through hole that allows fluid to pass therethrough to the opposite side, or in which the light source is positioned to shine through a hole in the side surface of the channel tube.
However, positioning of light sources within the middle of a flow path i.e. with a mounting structure containing through holes which allow flow to continue to an opposite side, and positioning of light sources to shine into a tube from a side surface thereof, are known in the art for fluid sterilization devices e.g. those employing UV LEDs. Ochi teaches various embodiments positioning such a source in various places, including at the end [Fig. 5], within the middle of the flow path [Fig. 3] using a support structure having holes therein to allow water to pass through [0049, Fig. 4A], and mounted on a side surface and position to shine through an opening in the surface [0061-0063, Fig. 6].
See MPEP 2143 I.B; a simple substitution of one known light mounting configuration for another, known to be useful for ultraviolet sterilization of fluid systems, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Adoption of one of these known configurations for the system of Sakurai would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as in Ochi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777