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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim 1 – 10 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “the light receiving portion is disposed at a position where light having intensity of one-hundredth or less of total emission from the light source is received”. However, the specification is unclear on how and/or where the “light receiving portion” is positioned.
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 1-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eden et al. (US 2022/0283476 A1; pub. Sep. 8, 2022) in view of Tkhtuev et al. (US 2007/0138401 A1; pub. Jun. 21, 2007).
Regarding claim 1, Eden et al. disclose: An ultraviolet ray receiving and emitting device comprising: a light source configured to emit light having a central wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm (para. [0038]); a filter configured to attenuate light in a wavelength band of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm and transmit at least a part of a wavelength band of 230 nm or more and less than 320 nm (para. [0032]).
Eden et al. are silent about: a light receiving portion having sensitivity to at least a part of light in a wavelength band of 220 nm or more and less than 320 nm and configured to receive light transmitted through the filter, a band of light that transmits through the filter overlaps at least a part of a band to which the light receiving portion has sensitivity.
In a similar field of endeavor Tkhtuev et al. disclose: a light receiving portion having sensitivity to at least a part of light in a wavelength band of 220 nm or more and less than 320 nm and configured to receive light transmitted through the filter (para. [0067] teaches variable wavelength (230-320nm) optical filter combined with UV detector 78, para. [0072] teaches the detector array 78 can be replaced with photodiodes), a band of light that transmits through the filter overlaps at least a part of a band to which the light receiving portion has sensitivity (para. [0067] teaches variable wavelength (230-320nm) optical filter combined with UV detector 78, para. [0072] teaches the detector array 78 can be replaced with photodiodes) motivated by the benefits for a cost-effective device (Tkhtuev et al. para. [0072]).
In light of the benefits for a cost-effective device as taught by Tkhtuev et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Eden et al. with the teachings of Tkhtuev et al.
Regarding claim 2, Eden et al. disclose: transmissivity of light having a wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm through the filter is one-tenth or less of transmissivity of light having a wavelength of 230 nm or more and less than 400 nm (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Eden et al. disclose: the filter has transmissivity increasing in an order of light having a wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm, light having a wavelength of 230 nm or more and less than 240 nm, and light having a wavelength of 240 nm or more and less than 250 nm (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Eden et al. disclose: transmissivity of light having a wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm through the filter is 1% or less (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Tkhtuev et al. disclose: the light receiving portion includes a photodiode, and the filter is disposed near a surface of the photodiode (para. [0072]) motivated by the benefits for a cost-effective device (Tkhtuev et al. para. [0072]).
The combined references are silent about: the filter is disposed in contact with a surface of the photodiode. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Tkhtuev et al. to dispose the filter in contact with a surface of the photodiode motivated by the benefits for a compact device.
Regarding claim 8, Eden et al. disclose: the light source emits both light having a wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm and light having a wavelength of 230 nm or more and less than 400 nm (para. [0028]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eden et al. (US 2022/0283476 A1; pub. Sep. 8, 2022) in view of Tkhtuev et al. (US 2007/0138401 A1; pub. Jun. 21, 2007) and further in view of Shao et al. “High-Performance of AI Nanoparticle Enhanced 4HSiC MSM Photodiodes for Deep Ultraviolet Detection”, IEEE Electron Device Letters, Vol.38, No. 10, Oct. 2017, pg.1405 – 1408.
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: the photodiode has higher light receiving sensitivity for light having a wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm than light receiving sensitivity for light having a wavelength of 230 nm or more and less than 400 nm.
In a similar field of endeavor Shao et al. disclose: the photodiode has higher light receiving sensitivity for light having a wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm than light receiving sensitivity for light having a wavelength of 230 nm or more and less than 400 nm (pg.1405 col.1 Abstract teach MSM photodiodes which are similar to the photodiodes described in para. [0014] of the specification of present application, therefore the photodiodes as taught by Shao et al. should function similarly to the claimed photodiodes) motivated by the benefits for a detector that has wide band-gap, high electron saturation velocity, superior thermal conductivity, and excellent physical stability (Shao et al. pg.1405 col.1 intro.).
In light of the benefits for a detector that has wide band-gap, high electron saturation velocity, superior thermal conductivity, and excellent physical stability as taught by Shao et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Eden et al. and Tkhtuev et al. with the teachings of Shao et al.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Eden et al. and Tkhtuev et al. and Shao et al. disclose: a response speed of the photodiode to ultraviolet light having a wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 400 nm is less than 1 second (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 6).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eden et al. (US 2022/0283476 A1; pub. Sep. 8, 2022) in view of Tkhtuev et al. (US 2007/0138401 A1; pub. Jun. 21, 2007) and further in view of Joseph “Disinfection of Bacillus Subtilis Spores Using Ultraviolet Light Emitting Diodes”, Master of Science Thesis, Jun. 2012, pg.1 – 101.
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: light emission intensity of the light having the wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm from the light source is 10 times or more light emission intensity of the light having the wavelength of 230 nm or more and less than 400 nm.
In a similar field of endeavor Joseph discloses: light emission intensity of the light having the wavelength of 220 nm or more and less than 230 nm from the light source is 10 times or more light emission intensity of the light having the wavelength of 230 nm or more and less than 400 nm (pg.35 last para. – pg.36 1st para. teach the same light source as that described in para. [0068] of the specification of the present application, therefore the UV LED light as taught by Joseph should function similarly to the claimed UV light source) motivated by benefits for a source with increased efficiency and low operating voltage (pg.36 1st para.).
In light of the benefits for a source with increased efficiency and low operating voltage as taught by Shao et al Joseph, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Eden et al. and Tkhtuev et al. with the teachings of Joseph.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eden et al. (US 2022/0283476 A1; pub. Sep. 8, 2022) in view of Tkhtuev et al. (US 2007/0138401 A1; pub. Jun. 21, 2007) and further in view of Manesh (5,812,251; Sep. 22, 1998).
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: the light receiving portion is disposed at a position where light having intensity of one-hundredth or less of total emission from the light source is received.
In a similar field of endeavor Manesh discloses: the light intensity detected by the detector depends on the relative change of the position of the detector relative to the light source (col.2 L40-48) motivated by the benefits for an adaptable detector.
In light of the benefits for an adaptable detector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Eden et al. and Tkhtuev et al. with the teachings of Manesh to have the light receiving portion is disposed at a position where light having intensity of one-hundredth or less of total emission from the light source is received.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884