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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 11, 12 and 15 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 11 recites the limitations "the number n11…the number n12…the number n23…the number n24…the number n25" in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the number n11…the number n12…the number n23…the number n24…the number n25" in lines 5-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the disinfection device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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, 4-6, 9, 10-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barber, III (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0117811).
Barber discloses a radiation generating system (Figures 1 & 2) comprising one or more first light sources (14) and one or more second light sources (16), wherein:
The one or more first light sources (14) and the one or more second light sources (16) are solid state light sources (paragraph 20);
The one or more first light sources (14) are configured to generate in an operational mode first light source light having a first centroid wavelength defined within a wavelength range of at maximum 380 nm (paragraphs 21-23);
The one or more second light sources (16) are configured to generate in an operational mode second light source light having a second centroid wavelength defined within the wavelength range of at maximum 420 nm (paragraph 25);
Wherein the second centroid wavelength > the first centroid wavelength (paragraphs 21-25);
The radiation generating system (Figures 1 & 2) is configured to provide a beam of radiation comprising one or more of (i) a first beam comprising first light source light having a first beam angle defined by full width half maxima and (ii) a second beam comprising second light source light having a second beam angle defined by full width half maxima (Figures 1 & 2);
Wherein the first beam and the second beam at least partly overlap (Figures 1 & 2), and wherein the first beam angle < the second beam angle (Figure 1; paragraph 25).
Concerning claim 4, Barber also discloses an optical axis, wherein the first light sources (14) are configured closer to the optical axis than the second light sources (16) as shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 5, Barber further discloses a plurality of second light sources (16), wherein the one or more first light sources (14) and the plurality of second light sources (16) are configured in an array (Figure 1), wherein the array has an array center (Figure 1), wherein the one or more first light sources (14) have a first average distance to array center (Figure 1), and wherein the plurality of second light sources (16) have a second average distance to array center (Figure 1), wherein the first average distance < the second average distance (Figure 1; paragraphs 21-25).
With respect to claim 6, Barber continues to disclose the one or more first light sources (14) and the one or more second light sources (16) comprising two or more of (a) a number n11 ≥ 0 (i.e., 0) of Far UV-C light sources configured to generate far UV-C light having a centroid wavelength within the wavelength range of at maximum 230 nm, and (b) a number n12 ≥0 (i.e., 1 or more; paragraphs 21 and 23) of near UV-C light sources configured to generate near UV-C light having a centroid wavelength within the wavelength range of 230-280 nm (paragraphs 21 & 23), (c) a number n23 ≥0 (i.e., 0)
of UV-B light sources configured to generate UV-B light having a centroid wavelength selected from the wavelength range of
PNG
media_image1.png
10
8
media_image1.png
Greyscale
280-315 nm, (d) a number n24 ≥0 (i.e., 0)
of UV-A light sources configured to generate UV-A light having a centroid wavelength selected from the wavelength range of 315-380 nm, and (e) a number n25 ≥0 (i.e., 3)
of violet light sources configured to generate violet light having a centroid wavelength selected from the wavelength range of 380-420 nm (paragraph 25), and wherein the number n11 + the number n12 > 1 and wherein the number n23 + the number n24 + the number n25 > 2 (paragraphs 21 & 25).
Concerning claim 9, the reference further discloses that the array comprises an array edge (by sources 16), wherein a majority of the light sources defining the array edge are selected from the group of violet light sources (Figure 1; paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 10, Barber continues to disclose a control system (122) configured to simultaneously control a spectral power distribution of the system light and a spatial power distribution of the system light (1001) from a first spectral power distribution and a first spatial power distribution to a second spectral power distribution different from said first spectral power distribution and a second spatial power distribution different from said first spatial power distribution, and wherein the system light (1001) comprises the first light source light (111) and the second light source light (paragraphs 32, 33, 42, 43, 47 and 48).
With respect to claim 11, Barber also discloses that the control system is configured to individually control the number n12 of near UV-C light sources (14/114), and the number n25 of violet light sources (16) as set forth in paragraphs 30-34 & 48.
Concerning claim 12, Barber further discloses that the control system (122) configured to simultaneously control a spectral power distribution of the system light and a spatial power distribution of the system light (1001) is configured to individually control number n12 of near UV-C light sources, the number n23 of UV-B light sources, and the number n25 of violet light sources (16) as set forth in paragraphs 21, 23, 30-34 & 48. Note that Barber discloses that multiple distinct wavelengths can be utilized from the first set of UV light sources (14) in paragraphs 23 & 32.
Regarding claim 14, Barber discloses a disinfection device (Figures 1 & 2) comprising the radiation generating system according to claim 1 (as noted above), wherein the one or more first light sources (14) and the one or more second light sources (16) comprise one or more of LEDs and superluminescent diodes (paragraph 20).
With respect to claim 15, Barber also discloses a method for treating a gas or a surface in a space external from the radiation generating system according to claim 1 (as set forth above) or the disinfection device, the method comprising providing the radiation to the gas or the surface with the radiation generating systems or the disinfection device (paragraphs 20-26).
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber, III (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0117811).
Concerning claim 2, Barber is relied upon as set forth above. Barber continues to disclose that the first centroid wavelength is selected within the wavelength range of 100-280 nm (paragraphs 21 & 23), that the second centroid wavelength is selected within the wavelength range of 280-420 nm (paragraph 25), and wherein the second centroid wavelength to the first centroid wavelength is ≥ 30 nm (paragraphs 21, 23 and 25); and wherein the radiation generating system is configured to provide the beam of radiation in an operational mode comprising both the first light source light (14) and the second light source light (16) as set forth in paragraphs 30-33. Barber does not appear to disclose that the first beam angle is selected from the range of at maximum 15°, that the second beam angle is selected from the range of at least 10°, and that the second beam angle to the first beam angle is ≥ 5° however. Nonetheless, the Courts have 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). As such, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first beam angle at a range of at maximum 15°, and the second beam angle at a range of at least 10°, in which the second beam angle to the first beam angle is ≥ 5° in order to successfully deactivate harmful microorganisms on a specific targeted object without performing undue harm on objects located near to said targeted object; as such is considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill (and to Barber as set forth in paragraphs 17, 21, 23 and 33) that would be optimized during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claim 2 is not patentable over Barber.
With respect to claim 7, while Barber continues to disclose that the radiation generating system is configured to provide the beam of radiation comprising: (i) near UV-C light having a beam angle (paragraphs 21 and 23), (ii) UV-B light having a beam angle (paragraphs 21 and 23), and (iii) violet light having a beam angle (paragraph 25), in which the beam angle of violet light is greater than the beam angle of the near UV-C light and the beam angle of UV-B light (paragraph 25); the reference does not appear to disclose that the beam angel of UV-B light is greater than the beam angle of near UV-C light. However, similarly to as noted above, the Courts have 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). As such, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the near UV-C lights with respect to the UV-B lights such that the beam angle of near UV-C lights is less than the beam angle of UV-B lights in order to properly provide the desired wavelength of light to a target object for a particular application; as such is considered a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill through routine experimentation because Barber discloses that it is desirable to emit different wavelengths of light (i.e., near UV-C light versus UV-B light) on specific target objects for different periods of time and intensities to successfully eliminate contaminants thereon (paragraphs 17, 21, 23 and 33). Only the expected results would be attained.
Therefore, claim 7 is not patentable over Barber as well.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber, III (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0117811) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,894,104).
Barber is relied upon as set forth above. Barber does not appear to disclose that the first centroid wavelength is from 190-230 nm. Kim discloses a radiation generating system that provides light to sterilize against harmful microorganisms, wherein the system includes first light sources at a first centroid wavelength, and second light sources at a second centroid wavelength of 405 nm (Figures 1-5, 10 and 11; column 2, lines 20-38). The reference continues to disclose that the first light source has a first centroid wavelength of 207-222 nm because such a wavelength can produce rapid sterilization without causing harm to the human body (column 9, lines 40-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first centroid wavelength of Barber from 207-22nm because such a wavelength can produce rapid sterilization without causing harm to the human body as exemplified by Kim.
As such, claim 3 is not patentable over Barber in view of Kim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber, III (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0117811) in view of Gordon (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0080117).
Barber is relied upon as set forth above. While Barber continues to disclose a beam shaping element (paragraph 24), the reference does not appear to disclose the specifics of said beam shaping element. Gordon discloses a radiation generating system for the purposes of sterilizing a target object, wherein the system is provided with a first (1502) and second (1504 light source as shown in Figure 22 (Abstract; paragraphs 107-114). The reference continues to disclose that the system includes a beam shaping, collimating element (1520) in the form of a hood surrounding said light sources in order to guide as much light as possible from the first and second sources to the target object (paragraph 115). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Barber with a beam shaping, collimating element in the form of a hood surrounding said light sources in order to guide as much light as possible from the first and second sources to the target object as exemplified by Gordon. Such a modification would create a configuration in which the beam from the first light sources (14) is more collimated than the beam from the second light sources (16) in Barber. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 are met by Barber in view of Gordon.
Thus, claim 13 is not patentable over Barber in view of Gordon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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 (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799