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. Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 10/13/2023. Claims 1-21 are presented for examination. This application is a 371 of PCT/IN2022/050548 filed on 06/15/2022. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim s 4 , 9 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is no antecedent basis for the limitations “the conversion” in claim 4 , and “the pathogens” in claim 9. The applicant is respectfully request to amend the claimed language to “a conversion” in claim 4 , and “pathogens” in claims 9 & 15-16. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1 -2, 7-8, 11-12 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric (GB 2047486 A) in view of Xiong et al. ( 20170321849 ). Re Claim s 1 , 8, 11 and 18-21 : Eric teaches lighting system, which includes a filament-less lamp { herein a lighting system for gas discharge tubes , such as fluorescent lamps /tube , see page 2, last paragraph; page 13+ } with a customized integrated electronic circuit comprising a combination of plurality of diodes { herein diode 41 & Zener diode 60 } (see page +) , plurality of resistors, a variable resistor { herein variable resistance device 40 } , capacitors { herein multiple capacitors 36 & 34 } (see 43+, 65+) ; and a strip attached to the filament-less lamp ( see fig.# 1 ) . Eric also teaches a transistor 12 (see page 3, 4 th paragraph) and one or more copper coils (see page 9, 3 rd paragraph+). Eric fails to specifically teach a strip attached to the filament-less lamp . Xiong et al. teaches LED tube lamp, which includes a strip 2 attached to the filament-less lamp (see figs.# 1A-1C, 3A; ¶ 108+). In view of Xiong et al.’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Eric a strip attached to the filament-less lamp so as to provide a board for attaching the components forming the electronic circuit. Re Claim s 2 and 12 : Eric as modified by Xiong et al. teaches a device, wherein the combination of plurality of diodes and plurality of resistors forms DC bridge rectifier circuit 42 (see page 5+) . Re Claim 7: Eric as modified by Xiong et al. teaches a device, wherein the filament-less lamp is any one of a failed UV-C lamp, fluorescent lamp, metal halide lamp, mercury vapor lamp, sodium vapor lamp, hydrargyrum medium-arc iodide (HMI) lamp ( see page 2, last paragraph, page 13+ ) . Claim(s) 3-6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric (GB 2047486 A) as modified by Xiong et al. ( US 20170321849) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garrison et al. (US 5,036,256). The teachings of Eric have been discussed above. Erich fails to specifically teach that the combination of plurality of diodes and capacitors forms a voltage multiplier circuit , wherein the voltage multiplier circuit enables the conversion of 230 V AC to 650-700 V DC. Garrison et al. teaches arc discharge ballast suitable for automative applications, which includes a voltage multiplier circuit , wherein the voltage multiplier circuit enables the conversion of 230 V AC to 650-700 V DC (col.4, lines 50-67+; col.6, lines 5-20+). In view of Garrison et al.’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Eric that the combination of plurality of diodes and capacitors forms a voltage multiplier circuit so as to generate a high voltage spike. Such modification would be beneficial by converting the voltage to a direct current output voltage having a predetermined value. Claim(s) 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric (GB 2047486 A) as modified by Xiong et al. ( US 20170321849) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hunter et al. (US 2006/0147339). The teachings of Eric have been discussed above. Eric also teaches t he high output available can also be used for Infra-Red lamps for signaling (i.e. military uses) Ultra-violet tubes for bacteria destruction and general hospital } (see page 13, 7 th paragraph) Eric fails to specifically teach that high lux intensity light effectively inactivates or kills the pathogens , wherein the pathogens are inactivated or killed within 15 seconds. Hunter et al. teaches method and apparatus for ultraviolet sterilization, wherein high lux intensity light effectively inactivates or kills the pathogens , wherein the pathogens are inactivated or killed within 15 seconds ( ¶ 18+). In view of Hunter et al.’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Eric that high lux intensity light effectively inactivates or kills the pathogens , wherein the pathogens are inactivated or killed within 15 seconds so as to emit radiation destructive to pathogenic microorganisms in a timely manner. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric (GB 2047486 A) as modified by Xiong et al. (20170321849) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van De Ven et al. (US 2009/0296384 A). The teachings of Eric have been discussed above. Eric teaches If the lamps can be used more efficiently, a smaller wattage lamp can be used permitting a cost saving not only for the electricity to operate the lamps but also for reduction of heat where air conditioning is important in the lighted area } ( see page 2, 3 rd paragraph ) . Eric fails to specifically teach a cooling fan is connected to the circuit. Van De Ven et al. teaches lighting device and lighting method, which a cooling fan is connected to the circuit ( ¶ 321+) . In view of Van De Ven et al.’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Eric a cooling fan is connected to the circuit so as to reduce over heating temperature due to increasing excitation of the lamp. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang (US 5,200,671) teaches filament-free lamp tube structure. Fregoso et al. (US 2015/0327963) teaches electrical discharge irrigator apparatus and method. Zhou et al. (US 2012/02 6 9677) teaches plasma sterilizing-purifying device and method for air sterilizing and purifying. Cho (CN 1504243 A) teaches control human potential of electrotherapy device. Pan (CN 210431985 U) teaches can be cut freely and unlimited splicing of line lamp. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2395 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30AM-5:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mr. STEVE PAIK can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2404 . 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. /EDWYN LABAZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876