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 .
Priority
This action is in response to US Patent Application No. 18/559,091, filed 06 November, 2023, as the National Stage Entry of International Application PCT/EP2022/060804, filed 25 April, 2022, and with priority to European Application EP 21172754.0, filed 07 May, 2021.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 06 November, 2023, which remove multiple dependencies and reference characters from the claims, are acknowledged. All claims 1-15 are amended and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation—Non-35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The specification includes definitions for certain claim terminology, which are restated below.
As indicated at the instant specification at page 5, line 3: “The coordinates x1,y1,x2,y2 are defined in the CIE 1931 coordinate system”.
As indicated at the instant specification at page 5, lines 3-8: “the term ‘substantially equivalent’ in the context of the present invention is meant that the following inequalities are fulfilled: |x1-x2|<0.05…[and]… |y1-y2|<0.05|”.
As indicated in the instant specification at page 6, lines 5-8: “The expression ‘in light-receiving relationship’ in the context of the present invention means that the light emitted by the disinfecting light module and the second light source is transmitted through the optical element before it leaves the disinfecting lighting device”.
As indicated in the instant specification at page 7, lines 20-22: “the term ‘powered’ in the context of the present invention means switched on or dimmed up (increased intensity), while the term ‘depowered’ means switched off or dimmed down (decreased intensity).”
Additionally—while not imposing a definition for claim limitations—it is noted that the instant disclosure contemplates various types of “first light sources” which emit light in both the UV wavelength range and the visible wavelength range, including LEDs, laser diodes, low pressure mercury plasma lamps, excimer light sources, and combinations (a plurality) of LEDs (page 4, lines 1-5), wherein LEDs encompass any type of LED known in the art, including phosphor coated LEDs (page 4, lines 6-12).
Claim Interpretation—35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Claim 4 recites the limitation “light outcoupling means” at lines 3 and 7, prompting consideration of the limitation in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case, the limitation “light outcoupling means” at lines 4 and 7 of claim 4: (A) includes the term “means”; (B) the term “means” is modified with the functional language “light outcoupling” and “said at least second portion of said third light is coupled-out of said light guide at said light outcoupling portion by said light outcoupling means” (claim 3, lines 6-7); and (C) although the light outcoupling means is indicated to be positioned at or near the light outcoupling portions, the claim does not set forth the actual structure of the light coupling means which achieves the function of coupling-out the second portion of the third light.
Accordingly, the limitation “light coupling means” is interpreted as encompassing the corresponding structures disclosed in the instant specification, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification indicates that: “The light outcoupling means may be a reflective dot pattern, which may be arranged on the second major surface” (page 6, lines 28-29). Thus, the “light coupling means” of claim 4 is a reflective dot pattern, or an equivalent thereof.
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 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 indicates that “said third light is provided at a higher luminous flux LF2a when said first light source is powered, and at a lower luminous flux LF2b when said first light source is depowered”. However, claim 11 depends from claim 9, which indicates that “said second light source during operation is powered and depowered in a second intermittent manner being inverse to said first intermittent manner” (claim 9, lines 2-3). The term “inverse” in claim 9 would appear to indicate that the second light source is powered (turned on or increased in intensity) when the first light source is depowered (turned off or decreased in intensity), and vice versa. Claim 11 essentially indicates the opposite by indicating that the third light—which is emitted by the second light source—is increased in intensity (provided at a higher luminous flux) when the first light source is powered.
Additionally, claim 11 includes the character “LF1”, which is not defined by claim 11. The character “LF1” is understood to refer to a first luminous flux of the second light, as stated in claim 10 (line 2), although claim 11 is not written as depending from claim 10.
The claims should be adjusted such that claim 11 includes a definition of the character “LF1” (e.g., by adjusting the claim to depend from claim 10 or adding the definition to the claim) and so that claim 11 clarifies the power and depowering pattern of the first and second light sources with respect to each other (e.g., claim 11 could be adjusted to depend from claim 8, so that the limitations of claim 11 would not contradict the “inverse” powering pattern of claim 9).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said second light exit window” at line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 13—which currently depends on claim 10—be adjusted to depend from claim 12, which does recite “a second light exit window (claim 12, line 3).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Gardner, III (US 2010/0320405 A1).
Regarding claim 1, it is first noted that the claim does not limit the second light source in a manner which would prohibit the second light source from being the same type of light source as the first light source. Thus, two light sources of the same type, both of which emit visible light and ultraviolet light, and which are coupled to a common optical element, would appear to meet all limitations of claim 1 because the visible portion of light from each light source (i.e., a second light and a third light as claimed) would be identical and thus necessarily have substantially equal color points.
Gardner (US 2010/0320405 A1) teaches an embodiment of a disinfecting system consistent with the embodiment of claim 1 described above. Particularly, Gardner teaches an apparatus (e.g., apparatus 152 or 153 of Figs. 1C and 1D, respectively) which emits UV radiation and visible light ([0097]), wherein the radiation source may comprise a pair of xenon type bulbs (12b) (Fig. 1D, [0054]) or excimer lamps (12c) (Fig. 1E, [0055]). With respect to Fig. 1D, a first bulb of the pair of xenon type bulbs (12b) can be considered a first light source of a disinfecting light module, and the other xenon type bulb of the pair can be considered a second light source, wherein the pair of bulbs are fairly implied to be identical (there is no indication that the bulbs are different from each other); alternatively, the pair of excimer lamps (12c) of Fig. 1E similarly define first and second light sources. Gardner further teaches embodiments wherein the radiation sources are selected to be not pure UV radiation sources ([0104]; [0054]-[0055]), meaning that at least some visible light is emitted by the radiation source in addition to ultraviolet light (mercury vapor bulbs/tubes are not pure and emit both UVC and some visible light…and certain LEDs and excimer lamps also emit visible light—[0099]). In such embodiments, a portion of the light emitted by first light source and the second light source will be emitted as ultraviolet light, and a portion of the light emitted by the first light source and the second light source will be emitted as visible light. Accordingly, said ultraviolet portion of the first light source defines a first light as claimed, said visible portion of the first light source thus defines a second light as claimed, and said visible portion of the second light source defines a third light as claimed. Thus defined, the spectral characteristics of the second light and third light are identical (because the first light source and second light source are identical), and thus a first color point x1,y1 of the second light and a second color point x2,y2 of the third light must substantially equivalent.
Furthermore, Gardner teaches that the first and second light sources (12b or 12c) are provided in a housing (10) and are configured to emit light the UV and visible light out of the housing through an optic (lens cover 40) provided in an exit port (15) of the housing (in a case when the primary UV source is not pure, a transparent lens cover 40 will pass the primary UV radiation 17 and visible light at the same time to cause the sterilization of surfaces, air, or liquids while providing visible light for a torch at the same time—[0104]; also see [0054]-[0055]). Thus, the optical element (lens cover 40) is arranged in a light receiving relationship with said at least one disinfecting light module and said second light source.
In view of the above, Gardner anticipates the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Gardner discloses the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 1. The second light and third light of Gardner, as defined in the rejection of claim 1 above, have identical spectral characteristics, and thus must have the same color coordinates (x1,y1 and x2,y2) on the CIE 1931 color space. Thus, within the device of Gardner as identified above, the following equations are fulfilled:|x1-x2| < 0.05 and|y1-y2|<0.05 .
Regarding claim 5, Gardner discloses The disinfecting lighting device according to claim 1, wherein said optical element (40) is light transmissive to said first light (transparent lens cover 40 will pass the primary UV radiation 17 and the visible light at the same time—[0104]).
Regarding claim 6, Gardner discloses the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 1. Gardner further teaches a first light mixing chamber comprising an inner cavity and a first light exit window (15) (see Fig. 1A from perspective G-G, wherein the reflector 19 defines an inner cavity within housing 10, the cavity defined by reflector 19 being aligned with UV exit port 15, and the reflector being reasonably capable of mixing the light output by the light sources 12 therein) , and wherein said at least one first light source (12) is arranged inside said inner cavity of said first light mixing chamber (coupled to housing 10 is reflector 19 positioned to reflect radiation 17 from primary UV radiation source 12 toward exit port 15…the UV radiation source may be any of the enumerated primary UV radiation sources—[0056]; as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, the pair of UV radiation sources 12, 12b, or 12c define first and second light sources consistent with the claims).
Regarding claim 7, Gardner discloses the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 6. Gardner further discloses said at least one second light source is arranged inside said inner cavity of said first light mixing chamber (see [0056] and Fig. 1A from angle G-G; as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, the pair of UV radiation sources 12, 12b, or 12c define first and second light sources consistent with the claims, both of which first and second light sources are depicted as being positioned within the inner cavity).
Regarding claim 8, Gardner discloses the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 1. Claim 8 indicates that said first light source during operation is powered and depowered in a first intermittent manner. The language of claim 8 does not provide a clear indication of which additional structures, if any, are needed to achieve the recited mode of operation. Gardner discloses a source activation control assembly (32) and switch (31), the switch allowing a user to turn the UV radiation source on and off ([0065] indicates switch 31 is used to activate controller 32 to activate UV radiation source 12 to emit light, and it is fairly implied to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the switch can similarly deactivate the UV radiation source 12). Accordingly, the device of Gardner meets the limitations of claim 8 because it is capable of being operated such that the first light source is powered and depowered in a first intermittent manner (i.e., by a user turning the switch on and off intermittently).
Regarding claim 12, Gardner discloses the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 1. Gardner further teaches wherein said disinfecting lighting device further comprises a second light mixing chamber comprising a second light exit window (see Fig. 1A from view G-G, and [0056]: reflector 19 defines a chamber within housing 10 having a light exit window 15) and wherein said at least one disinfecting light module, said optical element and said at least one second light source are arranged inside said second light mixing chamber (See Fig. 1A from view G-G, light sources 12 define a disinfecting light module and second light source, both of which are located in the chamber identified above, and optic 40 is positioned over window 15 and is thus also substantially within the mixing chamber). It is noted that claim 12 does not require or define that the “second light mixing chamber” be distinct from or provided in addition to the first light mixing chamber recited in claim 6.
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.
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 Gardner, III (US 2010/0320405 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Liu (US 2008/0158881 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Gardner discloses the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 1. The optic (transparent lens cover 40—[0067], [0098], [0104]) includes a light in-coupling portion and a light outcoupling portion (see, e.g., Fig. 2A, showing UV light 17 and visible light being emitted from an upper surface of lens 40 and received at a lower surface, the upper and lower surfaces thus defining light out-coupling and in-coupling portions), the optic thus acting as a light guide which receives at least a first portion of said third light at said light in-coupling portion.
Gardner does not teach light outcoupling means consistent with the interpretation of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see claim interpretation section above, the light outcoupling means are a reflective dot pattern or equivalents thereof). Gardner further does not teach that a second portion of the third light is light guided through a portion of the light guide based on total internal reflection, said at least second portion of said third light is coupled-out of said light guide at said light outcoupling portion by said light outcoupling means.
However, in the analogous art of optical coupling devices, Liu teaches embodiments of coupling lens systems (abstract), including an embodiment wherein a light source (190) delivers light into a bottom surface (732) of a light guide (730), some of the light travels through the light guide to be emitted from an emitting surface (734) opposite the bottom surface, and some of the light is reflected within the light guide before being diffusely reflected by outcoupling means (bumps 810) to leave from emitting surface (Figs. 7-9, [0038]; viewing Fig. 9 in view of [0038], the bumps 810 fairly define a dot pattern which reflects light to a light outcoupling portion). The optical guide of Liu effectively diffuses light for more uniform emission (provide uniform light source—[0006]; diffusing light—[0009], [0038]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical element (lens 40) of Gardner to be configured for diffusing light by internally reflecting some of the input light before diffusely reflecting the light out of the optical element with a reflective dot pattern (as seen with the bumps 810 within the light guide 730 of Liu) for the benefit of achieving a more uniform distribution of the emitted light (consider Liu at [0006]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner, III (US 2010/0320405 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Ufkes (US 2020/0206375 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Gardner teaches the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 8. It is noted that claim 9 recites a mode of operation of the device without citing a particular structural arrangement for enabling such operation. Nonetheless, the device of Gardner is not reasonably configured for a mode of operation wherein said second light source during operation is powered and depowered in a second intermittent manner being inverse to said first intermittent manner.
However, in the analogous art of UV disinfection apparatuses (title), Ufkes teaches first and second emitters (104, 106) of germicidal radiation which can be emitted in pulses out of phase with each other ([0009], [0013], [0015], Fig. 13A), i.e., at opposite times ([0048]). Pulsing emissions can optimize the kinetics of the kill curve for a target microorganism ([0048]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try configuring the light sources of Gardner to emit pulses which are out of phase from each other (i.e., in intermittent manners which are inverse to each other), as seen in Ufkes, for the benefit of optimizing the kinetics of the kill curve against a target microorganism (see Ufkes at [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Gardner in view of Ufkes teaches the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 9. As defined with respect to claim 1 above, the second light and third light of Gardner have identical spectral characteristics (including the intensity of emitted visible light because the first and second light sources are identical), such that said second light has a first luminous flux LF1, said third light has a second luminous flux LF2, wherein 0.8<LF1/LF2<1.2 (fluxes/intensity of the second and third light are equal, so the ratio of intensities is 1.0).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner, III (US 2010/0320405 A1), in view of Ufkes (US 2020/0206375 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Matsui (US 2015/0247615 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Gardner in view of Ufkes teaches the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 10. Gardner teaches said disinfecting light device comprising a reflector (reflector 19—[0056]), but does not teach arranging said reflector between said optical element and said at least one disinfecting light module, wherein said optical element is arranged between said second light exit window and said reflector, and wherein said reflector comprises at least one opening being aligned with said at least one disinfecting light module. Ufkes also does not teach the claimed arrangement.
However, in the analogous art of ultraviolet irradiation devices (title, abstract), Matsui teaches an ultraviolet light source (110), a reflective mirror (120), an optical element (collimating optical system 140), and a light exit at a surface of the optical element (see Fig. 2, light exits from right surface of element 140 in direction of axes 115; also see [0028]). At least a portion of the mirror (120) extends between said optical element (14) and the ultraviolet light source (110) (see Fig. 2), and the mirror (120) includes an opening slit where the optical element is positioned ([0030]), the opening being aligned with the ultraviolet light module (see Fig. 2). The arrangement of Matsui collimates light such that it is all directed in a single desired direction ([0032]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the light sources of Gardner in accordance with the arrangement of Matsui, such that the reflector is arranged between said optical element and said at least one disinfecting light module, wherein said optical element is arranged between said second light exit window and said reflector, and wherein said reflector comprises at least one opening being aligned with said at least one disinfecting light module (see arrangement of ultraviolet light source 110, mirror 120, opening 130, condenser 140, and exiting light 115 in Fig. 2 of Matsui), for the benefit of condensing the emitted light in a desired direction (see Matsui at [0032]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner, III (US 2010/0320405 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Gardner teaches the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 1. Gardner does not particularly indicate that said second light and said third light has a purple color or a purplish white color. However, Gardner does discuss how optical filters can be used to block wavelengths of visible light from the UV radiation sources ([0108]) and further teaches the use of wavelength transforming materials to adjust the wavelengths of emitted light ([0064]). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use optical filters and/or wavelength transforming material to adjust the color of the second and third light to have a purple color or a purplish white color for the benefit of achieving a desired color output for aesthetic design appeal. Also, Gardner suggests the use of xenon bulb type radiation sources ([0054]), wherein xenon bulb sources are well known to emit light over a broad spectrum which is perceived as white light; the color “purplish white” is not clearly defined by the claims, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably perceive the visible white light from the xenon bult as a “purplish white color”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 14 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, Gardner discloses the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 1. As defined with respect to claim 1 above, the second light and third light of Gardner have identical spectral distributions. Thus, Gardner does not teach said second light has a first spectral distribution and said third light has a second spectral distribution, and wherein said first spectral distribution is different from said second spectral distribution.
In effect, claim 3 is understood to require that the first light source and the second light source not be identical (such that they achieve different spectral distributions over the visible range), and further requires that the second light source emits visible light (the third light) having a color that is nearly identical to the color of the visible light (the second light) emitted by the first light source (characterized by having substantially equivalent color coordinates on the CIE 1931 color space).
Generally, disinfection devices including ultraviolet and visible light sources are known. For example, Van Bommel et al. (US 10,113,698, corresponding to document EP 3311423 B1 cited in the IDS filed 06 November, 2023) teaches a lighting assembly (100) including a source (light emitting element 108) of UV light (106) and a source (light emitting element 110) of visible light (112) (abstract), wherein the visible light (112) is of a targeted color point in the CIE color space (column 1, lines 51-55). Van Bommel ‘698 does not discuss the source of UV light emitting visible light, and provides no suggestion of matching the color of the light form the visible light source to the color of any trace amount of visible light that may be emitted by the UV light source.
Hikmet (US 2019/0355703 A1) discloses further examples of devices which combine UV light emitting LEDs (303,403, 503, 603, 613, 623, 703, 803) with visible light emitting LEDs (302/309, 402, 502, 602, 612, 622, 702, 802) (Figs. 3-8, [0049]-[0066]); the visible light emitting LEDs produce colored or white light ([0064]) which combines with UV light emitted from the UV LED and is emitted from a light output surface in an outgoing light direction ([0008],[0020]). Hikmet—similarly to Von Bommel ‘698—does not discuss the source of UV light emitting visible light (i.e., second light as claimed) in addition to the UV light (i.e., first light as claimed), and provides no suggestion of matching the color of the light from the visible light source (i.e., third light as claimed) to the color of any trace amount of visible light that may be emitted by the UV light source. No prior art was found which clearly teaches or suggests two distinct and non-identical light sources (i.e., having visible light spectral distributions that are different, as required by claim 3) comprising a first light source which emits both ultraviolet and visible light, and a second light source which is configured to emit visible light that is substantially identical in color (i.e., having a substantially equivalent coordinate in the CIE 1931 color space as required by claim 1) to the visible light emitted by the first light source. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 3 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Gardner discloses the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 1. Gardner teaches the device including a controller which powers the first and second light sources (control assembly 32—[0065]). Gardner does not teach the device further including a sensor, wherein said controller is arranged to power said second light source and to depower said first light source when presence of a subject is detected by said sensor.
Generally, deactivating UV light sources when a person enters an irradiation zone is commonplace. For example, Liao et al. (US 2016/0296650 A1) teaches a room lighting and disinfection system (Fig. 20A) including UV light sources (UV LEDs 228) and visible light sources (white or RGB LEDs 222), wherein the UV LEDs are deactivated when a sensor (230) detects a person in the room in which the system is located (Fig. 20B, [0129]-[0130]) for the evident benefit of preventing damage to human skin or eyes from the UV light. Additionally, it is commonplace for room illumination systems to turn on when persons are detected in the room to improve visibility for the person in the room. Thus, it is known to be advantageous to deactivate UV light sources when a person enters a room, and activate non-UV light sources when the person enters the room. Nonetheless, the first and second light sources of Gardner, as identified above, are both ultraviolet light sources. Thus, there is no clear motivation to configure the light sources of Gardner to operate in response to a detection of a person by a sensor in accordance with claim 14. Furthermore, no prior art was found which fairly teaches first and second light sources as recited in claim 1, wherein the first light source is deactivated (or reduced in intensity) when a person is detected and the second light source is activated (or increased in intensity) when the person is detected. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 14 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Claim 11—as best understood—would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, Gardner in view of Ufkes teaches the disinfecting lighting device according to claim 9. The device of Gardner is not configured to operate such that said third light is provided at a higher luminous flux LF2a when said first light source is powered, and at a lower luminous flux LF2b when said first light source is depowered, wherein 0.8<(LF2b+LF1)/LF2a<1.2. Ufkes suggests that emitters can be operated in phase or out of phase with each other ([0009], [0013], [0015], [0048], Fig. 13A), but does particularly teach a higher luminous flux of a third light when a first light source is powered, and a lower luminous flux of a third light when a first light source is depowered. No prior art was found which clearly teaches or suggests configuring an ultraviolet disinfection device to operate as claimed, wherein an intensity of the third light when the first light source is powered (LF2a) is approximately equal to the sum of the intensity of the third light when the first light source is not powered (LF2b) and the intensity of the second light (i.e., such that 0.8<(LF2b+LF1)/LF2a<1.2). However, it is emphasized that claim 11 needs to be adjusted to address the issues of clarity identified in the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Paschotta (webpage article title “Excimer Lamps” published to RP Photonics by Dr. Rüdiger Paschotta in 2020) indicates that excimer lamps emit small amounts of visible light often observable to an operator as a glow (page 3, paragraph above “Continuous or Pulsed Emission” heading).
Rehmet (“Xenon Lamps”, IEE PROC., Vol. 127, PT. A, No. 3, April 1980) discloses Figures showing the spectral distribution of xenon lamps, the spectral distribution stretching from far into the ultra-violet range and across the entire visible range into the infrared range (see, e.g., Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797