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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 10/27/2023
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In clam 2, and after the word “comprising” add “:”. The same apply to claims 6 and 13-14. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The cross-reference paragraph is missing in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 13-14 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.
Method claim 6 depends from ultraviolet device claim 1. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 6 since it is not positively recited what structural limitations are or are not included in dependent method claim 6 from claim 1. The same applies to claims 13 and 14. It is respectfully requested that the method claims be rewritten in independent forms to include all the structural limitations of claim 1, including any intervening claims.
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.
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 1-2, 4, 6-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stibich (US 10,772,980 B2).
Regarding claim 1 and 7-8; Stibich discloses an ultraviolet irradiation device (Fig.1:20) and method (col.1, lines 19-23 and Figures 10-12), comprising:
a light source (Fig.1:22) that is capable of emitting ultraviolet light having a main emission wavelength (col.10, lines 46-67 through col.11, lines 1-32) belonging to a range from 190 nm to 240 nm (col.11, lines 27-28);
a housing (Fig.1:24 and 42) that accommodates the light source (Fig.1:22);
an extraction part (Fig.1:24, 42 and 40 and the unlabeled walls of the encasement enclosing discharge lamp 22 as shown in Fig.1 and col.15, lines 15-26) that extracts the ultraviolet light emitted from the light source to an outside of the housing;
a diverging optical system (Fig.5:106 and col.33, lines 24-67 through col.34, lines 1-25) that enlarges a light distribution angle of the ultraviolet light passing through the extraction part (Fig.1:24, 42 and 40 and the unlabeled walls of the encasement enclosing discharge lamp 22 as shown in Fig.1 and col.15, lines 15-26);
the housing (Fig.4:102, lines 13-67 through col.27, lines 50) includes an attachment part (Fig.4: 116, 114, 110, 106 and 104) configured to attach a diverging optical system (col.33, lines 24-67 through col.34, lines 1-25) to the housing, the diverging optical system enlarging a light distribution angle of the
ultraviolet light passing through the extraction part (Fig.5:106, 118, 119, and 117);
emitting ultraviolet light having a main emission wavelength belonging to a range from 190 nm to 240 nm (col.11, lines 1-32) from a light source; and
enlarging a light distribution angle (col.33, lines 61-67 through col.34, lines 1-3) of the ultraviolet light using a diverging optical
system.
Regarding claim 2, Stibich discloses an optical filter (Fig.5:106 and 104) provided on an incident side of the diverging optical system (col.33, lines 24-67 through col.34, lines 1-25), the optical filter is capable of transmitting the ultraviolet light having the main emission wavelength belonging to a wavelength band from 190 nm to 240 nm and not substantially transmitting the ultraviolet light in a wavelength band of 240 nm to 280 nm.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Stibich discloses that the diverging optical system includes a lens array (col33, lines 43-44).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Stibich discloses disposing the ultraviolet irradiation device such that at least a part of the ultraviolet light to be emitted is emitted toward a space (col.33, lines 63-67 through col.34, lines 1-3), and causing the ultraviolet irradiation device to emit the ultraviolet light.
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.
Claims 3, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stibich (US 10,772,980 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Stibich appears silent to explicitly disclose the inherent separation distance between the optical filter (Fig.8:106) and the diverging optical system (Fig.8:127; col.33, lines 63-67 through col.34, lines 1-3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize to maintain the appropriate separation distance between the optical filter and diverging optical system in order to allow service personnel enough clearance distance (0 mm or more or 3mm or less, or even higher values) to access to repair or replace the UV lamp or the optical filter. 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 to change Stibich inherent separation values between the optical filter and the diverging optical system in order to allow service personnel enough clearance distance to access to repair or replace the UV lamp or the optical filter.
Regarding claim 10, Stibich discloses that the diverging optical system includes a lens array (col33, lines 43-44).
Regarding claim 14, Stibich discloses disposing the ultraviolet irradiation device such that at least a part of the ultraviolet light to be emitted is emitted toward a space (col.33, lines 63-67 through col.34, lines 1-3), and causing the ultraviolet irradiation device to emit the ultraviolet light.
Claims 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stibich (US 10,772,980 B2) as applied to claims 4, 9, 10, and further in view of Lloyd (US 10,195,300 B2).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 12; Stibich discloses that multiple converging lenses (col.33, lines 39-45) where the lenses have a longitudinal direction that extends along a longitudinal direction of the discharge lamp.
As to the limitation that the number of the small lenses equal the numbers of the excimer lamps; one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize to increase of decrease the number of the UV lamps (each UV lamp corresponds to a single diverging lens) depending on the size of the rooms that needs to be disinfected (large rooms require more UV lamps vs. small rooms). Therefore, choosing the appropriate number of UV lamps, and hence the number of converging lenses, is an obvious matter of routine experimentation to achieve the expected result of insuring the complete disinfection of small and large rooms.
Stibich appears silent to disclose that the light source is at least one excimer lamp.
Lloyd discloses a UV lamp disinfection system for areas (col.2, lines 42-63) where excimer lamps are used (col.9, lines 7-18 and col.10, lines 3-12) to emit lasers at wavelength at 193 nm or 222 nm. 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 to add Lloyd excimer lamps to Stibich device in order to provide lamps that emit lasers at wavelength at 193 nm or 222 nm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799