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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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, 5, 7-9, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0066974) in view of Silverman et al. (Effects of a single treatment with two nonthermal laser wavelengths on chronic neck and shoulder pain).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a light emitting device (Abstract) comprising:
a circuit board (120) (para. 29); and
at least one light emitter disposed on the circuit board (para. 10, 29) and configured to emit a light to cause a target irradiance at a surface a distance away from the circuit board (para. 7), wherein the circuit board comprises an on-board controller (para. 29), wherein the on-board controller comprises a driving circuitry that controls a characteristic of the light emitted by the one or more light emitters (para. 29, 44) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 7), wherein the characteristic is a duration of illumination (reads on radiometric power) (para. 29), and wherein the light emitted by the one or more light emitters comprises a wavelength in the range of 400 nm to 800 nm (para. 29), wherein a diffuser is positioned over the at least one light emitter and a portion of the diffuser is planar (para. 26) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 7).
Park discloses wherein the light is emitted to treat pain on a body part of a person illuminated by the device (Abstract).
Park is silent as to the light comprising a wavelength in the range of 380 nm to 420 nm, wherein the light is to inactivate microorganisms.
Silverman et al. discloses treating pain using a light device comprising a light source emitting 405 nm light (Abstract, “Study device” p. 4, “Conclusion” p. 12), and further discloses that 405 nm light has other beneficial effects such as antimicrobial effects (p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one light emitter disclosed by Park to comprise at least one light emitter emitting 405 nm light (reads on light to inactivate microorganisms; falls within the claim range of 380 nm to 420 nm), as such a wavelength falls within the range disclosed by Park, and Silverman et al. discloses that such a wavelength has numerous benefits including antimicrobial effects and efficacy in treating pain relief.
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses wherein the at least one light emitter is further configured to produce a radiometric power that satisfies a threshold wherein the threshold is based on the target irradiance at the surface (para. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the controller, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the radiometric power emitted by the at least one light emitter based on a time that the light emitted by the at least one light emitter has been emitted (para. 7-8).
Park is silent as to a second controller configured to adjust the radiometric power emitted by the at least one light emitter based on a time that the light emitted by the at least one light emitter has been emitted.
Nonetheless, it has been that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device disclosed by Park to comprise a second controller configured to adjust the radiometric power emitted by the at least one light emitter based on a time that the light emitted by the at least one light emitter has been emitted, as such a modification represents mere duplication of the first controller, and would provide the predictable outcome of duplicating the function of the first controller, which the skilled artisan would readily recognize as desirable in case of malfunction of the first controller.
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses wherein the characteristic is a duration of illumination (para. 7-8).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses at least one light emitter, as set forth above.
Although Park does not expressly teach a second light emitter that emits a second light comprising a different wavelength than the wavelength of the one or more light emitters, Silverman et al. discloses a device, discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, comprising a first light source emitting 405 nm light and a second light source emitting 635 nm light wherein the two light sources work together to synergistically treat pain (Abstract) (p. 11 last paragraph-p. 12 first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Park to comprise a second light emitter that emits a second light comprising a different wavelength (e.g., 635 nm) than the wavelength of the one or more light emitters, based on the teachings of Silverman et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a second light source for synergistic treatment of pain.
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses “at least one” light emitter (para. 10), and therefore the disclosure of Park encompasses a plurality of light emitters, configured to produce a combined radiometric power that satisfies a threshold wherein the threshold is based on a target irradiance at the surface (para. 7).
Park does not expressly teach the plurality of light emitters being formed as an array.
Nonetheless, it has been held that the rearrangement of parts of a prior art device, wherein the rearrangement does modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP §2144.04). Modifying the plurality of light emitters disclosed by Park so as to be an array would require mere rearrangement of the light emitters in the form of an array, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to arrange the light emitters in an array to provide a predictable distribution of emitted light.
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit the light at a radiometric power that satisfies the target threshold (para. 7-8).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses wherein the device is configured to be integrated into an assembly of a fixture or device (e.g., the device can be integrated into a wearable article, see para. 38-40).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses wherein at least a portion of the light is normal to a portion of the surface (para. 7) (Figs. 2-6, sheets 2-6 of 7).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses at least one light emitter having a radiometric power (para. 7).
Park does not expressly teach at least two light emitters, wherein the radiometric power emitted by the at least two light emitters is the same for each light emitter.
Nonetheless, it has been that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one light emitter disclosed by Park to comprise at least two light emitters, wherein the radiometric power emitted by the at least two light emitters is the same for each light emitter, as such a modification would require mere duplication of the disclosed at least one light emitter, and would yield the predictable outcome of enhancing illumination coverage of a surface.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0066974) in view of Silverman et al. (Effects of a single treatment with two nonthermal laser wavelengths on chronic neck and shoulder pain) as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Park et al. (KR 20130031172 A) (machine translation) (already of record).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the circuit board and at least one light emitter disposed thereon, as set forth above.
Park is silent as to wherein the circuit board is in a form of a ring.
Nonetheless, it has been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04).
Furthermore, Park et al. (KR 20130031172 A) (machine translation) discloses that it was known in the art to provide a light therapy device for treating a body part (para. 1-4) so as to comprise a circuit board in a form of a ring and at least one light emitter disposed on the circuit board (para. 14, 41) (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit board disclosed by Park to be in the form of a ring.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0066974) in view of Silverman et al. (Effects of a single treatment with two nonthermal laser wavelengths on chronic neck and shoulder pain) as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Kretschmann (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0129781) (already of record).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Silverman et al. teaches wherein the at least one light emitter emits light centered at a wavelength of 405 nm, as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the light should be within the visible spectrum (para. 7).
The prior art combination is silent as to the at least one light emitter comprising a full width half max (FWHM) emission spectrum of less than 20 nm to concentrate a spectral energy of the light and minimize energy associated with wavelengths that bleed into an ultraviolet wavelength range.
Kretschmann discloses a light emitting device (Abstract) comprising at least one light emitter configured to emit light having a wavelength of 405 nm in order to reduce bacteria (para. 7-9). Specifically, Kretschmann discloses wherein the at least one light emitter comprises a full width half max (FWHM) emission spectrum of 15-20 nm and centered at a wavelength of approximately 405 nm in order to emit a narrow band of the wavelength (para. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one light emitter taught by Park in view of Silverman et al. to comprise a full width half max (FWHM) emission spectrum of less than 20 nm, based on the teachings of Kretschmann, as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a narrow emission focused on the 405 nm wavelength to prevent emission of wavelengths outside of the visible spectrum (e.g., below 400 nm) in accordance with the disclosure of Park as discussed above. As to the limitation of “to concentrate a spectral energy of the light and minimize energy associated with wavelengths that bleed into an ultraviolet wavelength range”, the prior art combination necessarily fulfils this limitation, as the FWHM is by definition the width of an emission peak of emitted light at half of its maximum amplitude, and the prior art light is necessarily concentrated at a narrow band centered at 405 nm which is outside of the ultraviolet range.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0066974) in view of Silverman et al. (Effects of a single treatment with two nonthermal laser wavelengths on chronic neck and shoulder pain) as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Castel (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0366115).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the device configured to emit light at a target irradiance on a surface, wherein the light is applied to treat pain, as set forth above.
Park is silent as to wherein the target irradiance is at least 0.50 mW/cm2 across at least a portion of the surface.
Castel discloses a light emitting device configured to emit light upon a body part to relieve pain (Abstract), wherein the target irradiance is preferably about 1 mW/cm2 to about 5 mW/cm2 at the body part (para. 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device disclosed by Park in view of Silverman et al. such that the target irradiance is about 1 mW/cm2 to about 5 mW/cm2 (falls within the claim range) across at least a portion of the surface, based on the teachings of Castel, as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use an irradiance recognized in the art to be suitable for application to a body part.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0066974) in view of Silverman et al. (Effects of a single treatment with two nonthermal laser wavelengths on chronic neck and shoulder pain) as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Global Manufacturing Services (Conformal Coating - The Basics You Should Know) (already of record).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses the at least one light emitter disposed on the circuit board, as set forth above.
Park is silent as to wherein the at least one light emitter further comprises a conformal coating.
Global Manufacturing Services discloses that it was known in the art to apply a conformal coating to a circuit board in order to protect the components mounted thereon from environmental contamination (para. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one light emitter disclosed by Park to comprise a conformal coating, based on the teachings of Global Manufacturing Services, in order to protect the at least one light emitter from environmental contaminants.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0066974) in view of Silverman et al. (Effects of a single treatment with two nonthermal laser wavelengths on chronic neck and shoulder pain) as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Guidolin et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0168384) (already of record).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the array of light emitters arranged on the circuit board, as set forth above.
Park is silent as to boundaries of the light emitted from neighboring light emitters of the array of emitters intersecting or overlapping at the surface.
Guidolin et al. discloses a light emitting device (para. 122) (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, and 5, sheets 1-2 and 5 of 10) comprising a wall and a plurality of light emitters (3) arranged on the wall (para. 55-56, 122, 130-131), the light emitters configured to emit light having a wavelength in the range of 380-420 nm to inactivate microorganisms on a surface a distance away from the wall (para. 130-131, 138, 142-145). Guidolin et al. further discloses arranging the light emitters (3), each of which is emits a cone-shaped beam of light, at intervals along the wall such that boundaries of the light emitted from neighboring light emitters intersect (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, and 5, sheets 1-2 and 5 of 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitters disclosed by Park such that boundaries of the light emitted from neighboring light emitters intersect at the surface (e.g. by using light emitters each configured to emit a cone-shaped beam and arranging the light emitters at intervals along the substrate such that boundaries of emitted light intersect), as Guidolin et al. discloses that it was known in the art to provide a plurality of light emitters in a treatment device in such a manner, and the skilled artisan would have recognized that providing light emitters such that boundaries of emitted light between the light emitters intersect would increase the coverage of the emitted light and thereby enhance illumination of the surface.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0066974) in view of Park et al. (KR 20130031172 A) (machine translation) (already of record) and Silverman et al. (Effects of a single treatment with two nonthermal laser wavelengths on chronic neck and shoulder pain).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses a light emitting device (Abstract) comprising:
a circuit board (120) (para. 29); and
at least one light emitter disposed on the circuit board (para. 10, 29) and configured to emit a light to cause a target irradiance at a surface a distance away from the circuit board (para. 7), wherein the circuit board comprises an on-board controller (para. 29), wherein the on-board controller comprises a driving circuitry that controls a characteristic of the light emitted by the one or more light emitters (para. 29, 44) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 7), wherein the characteristic is a duration of illumination (reads on radiometric power) (para. 29), and wherein the light emitted by the one or more light emitters comprises a wavelength in the range of 400 nm to 800 nm (para. 29).
Park discloses wherein the light is emitted to treat pain on a body part of a person illuminated by the device (Abstract).
Park is silent as to the circuit board being in a form of a ring, and wherein the at least one light emitters is a circular array of light emitters configured to emit light comprising a wavelength in the range of 380 nm to 420 nm, wherein the light is to inactivate microorganisms.
As to the claimed circuit board in a form of a ring and circular array of light emitters, it has been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04), and that been that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04). Furthermore, Park et al. (KR 20130031172 A) (machine translation) discloses that it was known in the art to provide a light therapy device for treating a body part (para. 1-4) so as to comprise a circuit board in a form of a ring with a circular array of light emitters disposed on the circuit board (para. 14, 41) (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit board disclosed by Park to be in the form of a ring, and to modify the at least one light emitter to comprise a circular array of light emitters, as such a modification represents a mere change in shape and duplication of light emitters to arrive at a ring-shaped circuit board and a circular array of light emitters as was known in the art.
As to the claimed wavelength in the range of 380 nm to 420 nm and light to inactivate microorganisms, Silverman et al. discloses treating pain using a light device comprising a light source emitting 405 nm light (Abstract, “Study device” p. 4, “Conclusion” p. 12), and further discloses that 405 nm light has other beneficial effects such as antimicrobial effects (p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the emitted light disclosed by Park to comprise 405 nm light (reads on light to inactivate microorganisms; falls within the claim range of 380 nm to 420 nm), as such a wavelength falls within the range disclosed by Park, and Silverman et al. discloses that such a wavelength has numerous benefits including antimicrobial effects and efficacy in treating pain relief.
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit the light at a radiometric power that satisfies the target threshold (para. 7-8), wherein Park in view of Park et al. teaches the at least one light emitter comprising a plurality of light emitters as set forth above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0066974) in view of Park et al. (KR 20130031172 A) (machine translation) (already of record) and Silverman et al. (Effects of a single treatment with two nonthermal laser wavelengths on chronic neck and shoulder pain), as applied to claim 17, above, and in further view of Chung (KR 20110131453 A) (machine translation) (already of record).
Regarding claim 18, modified Park teaches the circuit board comprising an array of light emitters configured to cause a target irradiance, as set forth above.
The prior art combination is silent as to a second circuit board coupled to the circuit board, wherein the circuit board and the second circuit board each comprise an array of light emitters configured to produce the target irradiance.
Chung discloses a light emitting device comprising first and second circuit boards coupled together, each comprising an array of light emitters configured to produce a target irradiance (Abstract, p. 2 para. 7) (Fig. 3). Chung discloses that providing first and second circuit boards allows for various light source installation methods to be applied, including adjustment of angles at which light is distributed (p. 2 last para.-p. 3 first para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Park to comprise a second circuit board coupled to the circuit board, wherein each comprises an array of light emitters configured to produce the target irradiance, as Chung discloses that it was known in the art to couple together two circuit boards comprising light emitters in order to allow for various light source installation methods to be applied, including adjustment of angles at which light is distributed, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to distribute light emitters across two circuit boards to enhance flexibility of operation of the device, including providing independently controllable circuit boards, circuit boards at different angles, and the like.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0066974) in view of Park et al. (KR 20130031172 A) (machine translation) (already of record) and Silverman et al. (Effects of a single treatment with two nonthermal laser wavelengths on chronic neck and shoulder pain), as applied to claim 17, above, and in further view of Peterson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0030609) (already of record).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses wherein the circuit board is disposed behind a diffuser (para. 26) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 7), and wherein the diffuser allows the light to pass through (para. 30, 45), wherein Park in view of Silverman et al. teaches the light being within the range of 380-420 nm as set forth above.
Park does not expressly teach wherein the diffuser allows for at least 75% of the light to transmit through.
Peterson et al. discloses a light emitting device configured to emit light having a wavelength in a range of 380-420 nm to treat a surface (Abstract, para. 2). Peterson et al. discloses that the device comprises a diffuser that transmits light emitted by one or more light emitters (para. 71) and that any diffuser for such a device should be made of a material “capable of not substantially absorbing light in the 380 nm to 420 nm range” thereby allowing “most” of this light to transmit through (para. 73).
It has been 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, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). Peterson et al. discloses general conditions for the transmission capabilities of diffusers in the 380-420 nm wavelength range, and it would be readily apparent to the skilled artisan that increasing transmission of such light through the diffuser would enhance treatment upon a surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation for the percentage of light which can be transmitted through the diffuser in order to arrive at a device capable of delivering a desired amount of 380-420 nm light for surface treatment.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-19 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,084 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 17 of the reference patent recites a light emitting device comprising a circuit board and at least one light emitter disposed on the circuit board and configured to emit a light to inactivate microorganisms and cause a target irradiance at a surface a distance away from the circuit board, wherein the circuit board comprises an on-board controller, wherein the on-board controller comprises a driving circuitry that controls an output of the light emitted by the at least one light emitters (thus the driving circuitry necessarily controls a characteristic of the light wherein the characteristic is radiometric power, as the radiometric power is synonymous with the “output” of the at least one light emitter), and wherein the light emitter by the at least one light emitter comprises a wavelength in the range of 380-420 nm. Although claim 17 of the reference patent does not recite wherein a diffuser is positioned over the at least one light emitter, claim 18 of the reference patent recites wherein the substrate (which comprises the at least one light emitter) is disposed behind a diffuser (thus the diffuser is positioned over the at least one light emitter). As to the limitation of wherein a portion of the diffuser is planar, it has nonetheless been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04). Therefore, claim 1 is obvious in view of claims 17 and 18 of the reference patent.
Regarding claim 2, claim 19 of the reference patent recites wherein the circuit board is in the form of a circle with a hole in the middle (i.e., a ring). Therefore, claim 2 is obvious in view of claims 17-19 of the reference patent.
Regarding claim 3, claim 17 of the reference patent recites wherein a proportion of a spectral energy of the light, measured in a 380 nanometers (nm) to 420 nm wavelength range, is at least 50%.
Regarding claim 4, claim 17 of the reference patent recites a full width half max (FWHM) emission spectrum of less than 20 nm and centered at a wavelength of approximately 405 nm to concentrate the spectral energy of the light and minimize energy associated with wavelengths that bleed into an ultraviolet wavelength range.
Regarding claim 5, claim 17 of the reference patent recites wherein the at least one of light emitter is further configured to produce a radiometric power that satisfies a threshold, wherein the threshold is based on a target irradiance at the solid surface sufficient to initiate inactivation of the microorganisms on the surface.
Regarding claim 6, claim 17 of the of the reference patent recites wherein the target irradiance is approximately 1 mW/cm2 across at least a portion of the surface (falls within the claim range).
Regarding claim 11, claim 17 of the reference patent is silent as to an array of light emitters; however, each of claims 14, 15, and 16, respectively, of the reference patent recite an array of light emitters configured to produce the target irradiance (reads on producing a combined radiometric power that satisfies a threshold wherein the threshold is based on a target irradiance). Therefore, claim 11 is obvious in view of claims 17 and 18 and any of claims 13, 15, and 16 of the reference patent.
Regarding claim 13, claim 17 of the reference patent is silent as to the on-board controller being configured to cause the at least one light emitter continuously emit the light; however, claim 22 of the reference patent recites wherein the on-board controller is configured to cause the at least one light emitter to continuously emit the light at a radiometric power that satisfies a target threshold. Therefore, claim 13 is obvious in view of claims 17 and 18 and 22 of the reference patent.
Regarding claim 15, claim 17 of the reference patent is silent as to wherein at least a portion of the light is normal to a portion of the surface; however, claim 13 of the reference patent recites wherein at least a portion of the light is normal to a portion of the surface. Therefore, claim 15 is obvious in view of claims 17 and 18 and 13 of the reference patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799