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 .
Priority
Claims 1-30 are deemed to have an effective filing date of June 21, 2022.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0127], line 1, of the originally-filed specification – The recitation of “Figs. 5C and 5B show” has a typographical error in that Figs. 5C and 5D show the features described in paragraph [0127].
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.
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 1-30 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.
In claim 1, the recitation of “more preferably” (lines 4 and 8), “most preferably” (lines 4, 9 and 12), and “preferably” (lines 8 and 12) render the claim indefinite as the scope of the claim is unclear as to what values are required to infringe the claim. For purposes of examination, the phrases have been interpreted as alternative ranges. Thus, a UV-B with a light intensity within one of the claimed ranges would meet that limitation of the claim.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13, and 21 also recite at least one of “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “most preferably” and are thus indefinite as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the at least first UV-C LED” in line 1. This is insufficient antecedent basis for this element because claim 1 recites this term with “and/or” preceding the term. Thus, there are scenarios covered by claim 1 that do not include at least a first UV-C LED. Consequently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this element. The Examiner suggests positively reciting that “a first UV-C LED in claim 6 before modifying the term.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the at least one UV-C LED”. However, claim 1 recites this term with “and/or” preceding the term. Thus, in some scenarios, claim 1 would not provide antecedent basis for this claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the UV-C LED”. However, claim 1 recites this term with “and/or” preceding the term, and claim 19 doesn’t mention the term. Thus, in some scenarios, claim 1 would not provide antecedent basis for this claim. Claims 12 and 20 are indefinite.
In claim 22, the recitation of “optionally the UV-C light” renders the claim indefinite because, in some scenarios, a UV-C light may not be present in claim 1; there is no conjunction between the recited “each of the UV-B light[sic]” and it is unclear whether the UV-C light is required to infringe the claim. The Examiner is interpreting this recitation as an alternative recitation so either each of the UV-B lights have a wattage of one of the recited values or a UV-C light has one of the wattage values.
In claim 23, the recitation of “such as” in lines 3 and 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if a room and light exposure intensity are required to infringe the claim, and the other possibilities are similar to the first mentioned element, but not required to meet the claim; or if the “such as” phrase recites alternatives.
In claim 27, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth due to the recitation of “such” (line 2), “such as “ (twice in line 3), and “for example” (line 3). Consequently, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 28, line 2, includes the connector “such that” and claim 28, line 4, includes the connector “such as” that renders the phrase following the connector indefinite as “such” connotes “of the kind, character, degree” which does not mean that the phrase following the connector is required for the claim. The Examiner suggests the connector “so that” in line 2. With regard to “such”, the Examiner interprets those phrases as alternatives. Claims 29 and 30, the metes and bounds of the claims are not clearly set forth due to the recitation of “such as” in line 2 and “such” in line 3. It is unclear what the intended scope of those claims is.
Claims 7, 14-19, and 24-26 are rejected because they depend from an indefinite 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, 4-5, 13-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0089548 to Kaas.
Regarding claim 1, Kaas discloses a light emitting unit for 1) reducing microbial pressure, and 2) stimulating production of natural vitamin D3 (e.g., abstract), the light emitting unit comprising: at least a first UV-B LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-B light having a maximum intensity between 292-302 nm, more preferably between 295-299 nm, most preferably at 297 nm (e.g., paragraphs [0014]: LED is a semiconductor light source that emits monochromatic light; and [0051]: table includes different lamp types and single LEDs that can be used in a lamp assembly including UV-LED maximum intensity 297 nm); and at least a second UV-B LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-B light having a maximum intensity between 275-290 nm, preferably between 278-288 nm, more preferably between 281-285 nm, most preferably at 283 nm (e.g., paragraphs [0014] and [0051]: table includes different lamp types and single LEDs that can be used in a lamp assembly including UV-LED maximum intensity 285 nm); and/or at least a first UV-C LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-C light having a maximum intensity between 228-238 nm, preferably between 231-235 nm, most preferably at 233 nm (alternative LED not required).
With respect to claim 4, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least first UV-B LED is configured for emitting monochromatic UV-B light having a maximum intensity between 296-298 nm, most preferably at 297 nm (e.g., paragraphs [0014] and [0051]: table includes different lamp types and single LEDs that can be used in a lamp assembly including UV-LED maximum intensity 297 nm).
As to claim 5, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least second UV-B LED is configured for emitting monochromatic UV-B light having a maximum intensity between 282-284 nm, most preferably at 283 nm (e.g., paragraph [0010]: UV light is emitted at wavelengths between 270 nm and 315 nm wherein the lamp comprises a plurality of LEDs).
With respect to claim 13, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, comprising at least one visible light LED configured for emitting polychromatic visible light, preferably with wavelengths in the range of 380 nm-750 nm (e.g., paragraphs [0008]: polychromatic light emulates natural light; [0010]: lamp emits natural light; [0028]: apparatus emits both visible light and UV light; [0051]: table includes different lamp types and single LEDs that can be used in a lamp assembly including LED visible intensity 400 nm to 700 nm; [0053]-[0055]:lamp assemblies H to X comprise a plurality of LEDs for providing the UV light and another light for providing the natural light ).
As to claim 14, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, configured for not emitting light below 270 nm, except emittance of monochromatic UV-C light in a range of 215-240 nm (e.g., paragraphs [0051]-[0054]: 1st table includes different lamp types and single LEDs that can be used in a lamp assembly including LED visible intensity 270 nm to 900 nm and does not emit UV-C light).
With respect to claim 21, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, further comprising a housing (e.g., paragraph [0042]: lamp comprising a housing), preferably metallic (not required as it is indefinite), preferably having cooling fins (e.g., paragraph [0022]: temperature of lamp is control via a liquid cooling circuit or a heat sink), the housing accommodating all LEDs of the light emitting unit (e.g., paragraph [0042] and Fig. 1B).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0185529 to Shur et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Shur”).
With respect to claim 2, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose at least the first and the second monochromatic UV-B LED light having a full width half max (FWHM) spectral bandwidth of less than less than or equal to 20 nm, more preferably less than or equal to 15 nm, most preferably less than or equal to 10 nm or even 8 nm. However, Shur, in a related art: disinfecting and sterilizing objects using UV light, teaches that a first radiation source 46A can operate at a first peak wavelength with the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) being 5 to 50 nanometers (i.e., Shur teaches less than 8 nm), and a second UV radiation source B operating at a second target peak wavelength with the FWHM being 5 to 50 nm (less than 8 nm) (e.g., paragraph [0043] of Shur).
As to claim 3, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach that the at least second monochromatic UV-B LED light has a full width half max (FWHM) spectral bandwidth of at least 30 nm, more preferably at least 35 nm, most preferably at least 40 nm (e.g., paragraph [0043] of Shur).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a light emitting unit in the disinfection art having a full width half max spectral bandwidth of less than 20nm, or greater than 30nm in view of the teachings of Shur. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit of Kaas to have the FWHM spectral bandwidths of recited in Applicant’s claims 2-3 because such were well-known types of UV light parameters in the disinfection art (reduction of microbial pressure) in view of the teachings of Shur, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claims 6, 9-10, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of International Publication Number WO 2020/254557 (hereinafter referred to as WO ‘557).
With respect to claim 6, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a first UV-C LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-C light having a maximum intensity between 232-234 nm, most preferably at 233 nm. However, WO ‘557 teaches, in a related art: method, device and system for reducing microbial pressure, that disinfection can be provided by means of exposure of the air to UV light and/or UVC light (e.g., paragraph spanning pages 2-3 of WO ‘557; page 8, lines 31-32; and page 9, lines 22-24 of WO ‘557: UVC refers to the range of 100-280). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of emitting UV-C light having an intensity between 232-234 nm in view of the teachings of WO ‘557 that UVC can provide disinfection to air. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit of Kaas to include at least one UV-C LED in view of the teachings of WO ‘557 in order to provide a higher disinfection of the air, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 9, Kaas disclose the light emitting unit according to claim 1, further comprising: at least a second UV-C LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-C light having a maximum intensity between 217-227 nm, preferably between 220-224 nm, most preferably at 222 nm (e.g., paragraph spanning pages 2-3 of WO ‘557; page 8, lines 31-32; and page 9, lines 22-24 of WO ‘557: UVC refers to the range of 100-280). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of emitting UV-C light having an intensity between 232-234 nm in view of the teachings of WO ‘557 that UVC can provide disinfection to air. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit of Kaas to include at least one UV-C LED in view of the teachings of WO ‘557 in order to provide a higher disinfection of the air, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 10, Kaas in view of WO ‘557 teaches the light emitting unit according to claim 1, further comprising: at least a third UV-C LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-C light having a maximum intensity between 255-265 nm, preferably between 258-262 nm, most preferably at 260 nm (e.g., paragraph spanning pages 2-3 of WO ‘557; page 8, lines 31-32; and page 9, lines 22-24 of WO ‘557: UVC refers to the range of 100-280). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of emitting UV-C light having an intensity between 232-234 nm in view of the teachings of WO ‘557 that UVC can provide disinfection to air. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit of Kaas to include at least one UV-C LED in view of the teachings of WO ‘557 in order to provide a higher disinfection of the air, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to the specified ranges in claims 9-10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light emitting unit of Kaas in view of WO ‘557 to have LEDs with those maximum intensities, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Please see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 16, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 13, configured for emittance of the polychromatic visible light; but, does not expressly disclose the emittance time period as being less than 16 hours per day, nor does it disclose the time period for emittance of the monochromatic non-visible UV-B and UV-C light as being at least 22 hours per day. However, WO ‘557 teaches, in a related art that polychromatic light from at least one lamp that includes both visible light and UVB light can be emitted up to 16 hours per day (page 5, lines 31-33 of WO ‘557) and that the lamp emitting UVC light can be emitted throughout day and night (up to 24 hours a day or greater than 22 hours per day) (e.g., page 13, lines 22-31 of WO ‘557).
With respect to claim 22, Kaas disclose the light emitting unit according to claim 13, but does not expressly disclose the wattage of the single polychromatic visible light and the wattage of the UV-B light. However, WO ‘557, in a related art, teaches that the first lamp may have an effect of 50 W, 80 W, 125 W, etc., but the lamp effect may differ depending on the size/type of animal (e.g., page 5, lines 12-25; and page 12, line 35-page 13, line 5 of WO ‘557). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the LED emitting visible light of Kaas so that the LED has a wattage of at least 48 W, and that the LED for the UVB emitting light has a wattage in view of the teachings of WO ‘557 that such was known to those skilled in the art. With respect to the specific wattages for the UVB LED, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light emitting unit of Kaas in view of WO ‘557 to have LEDs with those maximum intensities, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
Claims 7-8, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0125966 to Höglund et al. (EFD: 08/27/2019 and hereinafter referred to as “Höglund”).
With respect to claim 7, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that it controls a ratio of light emittance between the at least first UV-B LED and the at least second UV-B LED. Kaas discloses using a temperature sensor to control properties of the LED (e.g., paragraphs [0022], and [0049] of Kaas). Höglund, in a related art: system and method for reducing microorganism with a light assembly, teaches that it was known in the art for a multi-LED light assembly emitting two different wavelengths of light to control the time average intensities by controlling a ratio of light emittance between the two LEDs (e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0058] and [0080] of Höglund). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of controlling the ratio of light emittance between the first UV-B LED and the at least second UV-B light of Kaas in view of the teachings of Höglund that such was a well-known way of controlling the time averaged intensity of the multi-LED lamp. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit of Kaas to control the time averaged intensities of the LEDs in view of the teachings of Höglund, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 8, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that a ratio of light emittance between the at least second UV-B LED and the at least first UV-B LED is more than 2, more preferably more than 2.5, most preferably around or more than 3. However, Höglund, in a related art, teaches that it was known in the reducing microorganism art using light assemblies to use time averaged intensities to control the emittance of the light assembly as discussed above. With respect to the specified ratio values in 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light emitting unit of Kaas in view of Höglund to have LEDs with those ratios, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
With respect to claim 15, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 13, but does not expressly disclose a colour temperature of the visible polychromatic light is around 2700 K. However, Höglund, in a related art, teaches that the time averaged intensities of the blue lights and the intensity of the white light or ambient light has an emitted light having a light temperature in a range from 3000-10000K (e.g., paragraphs [0080], [0092], [0094] of Höglund). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a temperature of visible light in view of the teachings of Höglund. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the lighting unit of Kaas so that it has a polychromatic visible light with a temperature in view of the teachings of Höglund. With respect to the specified colour temperature, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light emitting unit of Kaas in view of Höglund to have the polychromatic visible light LED around 2700K, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
As to claim 18, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose at least one light sensor for measuring light exposure from the light emitting unit. However, Höglund, in a related art, teaches at least one light sensor that detects the time averaged intensities of lights emitted by the light assembly (e.g. paragraph [0077] of Höglund). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a light sensor for measuring light exposure from the light emitting unit in view of the teachings of Höglund. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the lighting unit of Kaas so that it has a sensor for measuring light exposure in order to control the time averaged intensities of the LEDs of the lighting unit in view of the teachings of Höglund, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 19, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach at least one movement sensor for detecting activity, e.g. movement from humans and/or animals, in a vicinity of the light emitting unit. However, Höglund, in a related art, teaches at least one sensor operable to detect the presence of movement of an object within a target area so that the light emittance may be controlled in the presence of a human or animal (e.g., paragraph [0084] of Höglund). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a movement sensor for detecting movement from human or animals in the vicinity of the light emitting unit in view of the teachings of Höglund. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the lighting unit of Kaas so that it has a movement sensor that that the intensities of the light emitting unit can be controlled when the presence of humans or animals is detected in view of the teachings of Höglund.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO ‘557 and Shur.
Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the monochromatic UV-C LED light has a full width half max (FWHM) spectral bandwidth of less than or equal to 20 nm, more preferably less than or equal to 15 nm, most preferably less than or equal to 10 nm or even 8 nm. However, WO ‘557 teaches, in a related art: method, device and system for reducing microbial pressure, that disinfection can be provided by means of exposure of the air to UV light and/or UVC light (e.g., paragraph spanning pages 2-3 of WO ‘557; page 8, lines 31-32; and page 9, lines 22-24 of WO ‘557: UVC refers to the range of 100-280). Shur, in a related art: disinfecting and sterilizing objects using UV light, teaches that a first radiation source 46A can operate at a first peak wavelength with the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) being 5 to 50 nanometers (i.e., Shur teaches less than 8 nm), and a second UV radiation source B operating at a second target peak wavelength with the FWHM being 5 to 50 nm (less than 8 nm) (e.g., paragraph [0043] of Shur). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a light emitting unit in the disinfection art having an UV-C LED in view of the teachings of WO ‘557 where the LED has a full width half max spectral bandwidth of less than 20nm in view of the teachings of Shur. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit of Kaas to have an UV-C LED as taught by WO ‘557 with the FWHM spectral bandwidths of recited in Applicant’s claim 11 because such were well-known types of UV light parameters in the disinfection art (reduction of microbial pressure) in view of the teachings of Shur, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO ‘557 and Shur.
With respect to claim 12, Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, configured to control a ratio of light emittance between at least one of the UV-B LED and the at least one UV-C LED. However, WO ‘557 teaches, in a related art: method, device and system for reducing microbial pressure, that disinfection can be provided by means of exposure of the air to UV light and/or UVC light (e.g., paragraph spanning pages 2-3 of WO ‘557; page 8, lines 31-32; and page 9, lines 22-24 of WO ‘557: UVC refers to the range of 100-280). Shur, in a related art: disinfecting and sterilizing objects using UV light, teaches that a first radiation source 46A can operate at a first peak wavelength with the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) being 5 to 50 nanometers (i.e., Shur teaches less than 8 nm), and a second UV radiation source B operating at a second target peak wavelength with the FWHM being 5 to 50 nm (less than 8 nm) (e.g., paragraph [0043] of Shur). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a light emitting unit in the disinfection art having an UV-C LED in view of the teachings of WO ‘557 light emittance between LEDs of the light emitting unit control a ratio of light emittance between two of the LEDs in view of the teachings of Shur. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit having a UV-B LED of Kaas to also have an UV-C LED as taught by WO ‘557 and to control a ratio of light emittance between the UV-B and UV-C LEDs of Kaas in view of WO ‘557 because such were well-known types of UV light parameters in the disinfection art (reduction of microbial pressure) in view of the teachings of Shur, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0001069 to Allen et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Allen”).
Kaas discloses the light emitting unit according to claim 1, wherein all of the LEDs are mounted on a plate, but does not expressly disclose a common replaceable circuit board. However, Allen, in an ultraviolet light disinfection system/method, teaches that each light source comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) that are disposed on a printed circuit board or other substrate (e.g., paragraph [0039] and Fig. 2) of Allen). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit of Kaas so that the plate is a common replaceable printed circuit board in view of the teachings of Allen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit of Kaas so that the LEDs are mounted on a common replaceable circuit board in view of the teachings of Allen that such was a well-known engineering expedient, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas in view of Höglund as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of WO ‘557.
Kaas in view of Höglund teaches the light emitting unit according to claim 19, configured to turn off the UV LED(s) when activity is detected in the vicinity of the light emitting unit (e.g., paragraph [0088] of Höglund: controller receives data comprising information of the detection of presence or movement of an object and based on the instructions operates between the disinfecting mode and the ambient mode), but does not expressly teach turning off the UV LEDs when activity is detected. However, WO ‘557 teaches that UV light can be harmful to humans and that exposure to UV light is regulated (e.g., page 6, lines 4-15 of WO ‘557). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of turning off the UV LEDs of Kaas in view of Höglund when the motion sensor alerts the presence of animals and humans in view of the teachings of WO ‘557. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the lighting emitting unit of Kaas in view of Höglund so that it is configured to turn off UV LEDs when activity (presence of humans or animals) is detected in the vicinity of the light emitting unit in view of the teachings of WO ‘557, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claims 23 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘557 in view of Kaas.
Regarding claim 23, WO ‘557 discloses a system for 1) providing working light, 2) reducing microbial pressure, and/or 3) stimulating production of natural vitamin D3, in a room for accommodating humans, such as a classroom, a hospital ward, an office space, or an assembly hall, or in an animal farm production facility (e.g., abstract: ventilation system for reducing microbial pressure where humans work in the animal far production facility), the system comprising: at least one light emitting units (e.g., abstract); and a control system adapted for managing; light exposure time; and/or light exposure intensity, such as total light emittance; in selected wavelength ranges of the light emitting unit(s) (e.g., abstract: controlling light exposure by managing the predetermined light exposure time). WO ‘557 differs from the claimed invention in that it does not expressly claim two different LEDs for emitting monochromatic UV-B light having differing maximum intensities. However, Kaas, in a related art: Apparatus for promoting D-Vitamin production in a living organism, teaches the structure of the light emitting unit of claim 1 as discussed above in item/paragraph 7 above. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of such a light emitting unit in view of the teachings of Kaas. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify at least one of the UV light emitting units/lamps of WO ‘557 system to have the well-known structure of Kaas as such would have been a replacement of one known lighting system with another known lighting system to provide a similar function, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claims 27-28, WO ‘557 in view of Kaas teaches the system according to claim 23, but does not expressly teach that the light emitting units only emit UV-C light during a selected period during the day, such as during closing time of the room, such as night-time, for example from 22 to 5 o'clock local time. However, WO ‘557 teaches that UV light can be harmful to humans and that exposure to UV light is regulated (e.g., page 6, lines 4-15 of WO ‘557). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of only emitting UV-C light during a selected period during the day when humans or animal are not present, or when a room is closed the UV LEDs in view of WO ‘557. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the lighting emitting unit system of WO ‘557 in view of Kaas so that it is configured to only emit UV-C LEDs when humans or animals are not detected in the vicinity of the light emitting unit in view of the teachings of WO ‘557, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘557 in view of Kaas as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Höglund.
With respect to claim 24, WO ‘557 in view of Kaas teaches the system of claim 23, but does not expressly teach at least one light sensor for measuring the light exposure from the light emitting unit(s). However, Höglund, in a related art, teaches at least one light sensor that detects the time averaged intensities of lights emitted by the light assembly (e.g. paragraph [0077] of Höglund). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a light sensor for measuring light exposure from the light emitting unit in view of the teachings of Höglund. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the lighting unit system of WO ‘557 in view of Kaas so that it has a sensor for measuring light exposure in order to control the time averaged intensities of the LEDs of the lighting unit in view of the teachings of Höglund, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 25, WO ‘557 in view of Kaas discloses the system according to claim 23, but does not expressly teach at least one movement sensor for detecting activity in the room. However, Höglund, in a related art, teaches at least one sensor operable to detect the presence of movement of an object within a target area so that the light emittance may be controlled in the presence of a human or animal (e.g., paragraph [0084] of Höglund). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a movement sensor for detecting movement from human or animals in the vicinity of the light emitting unit in view of the teachings of Höglund. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the lighting unit system of WO ‘557 in view of Kaas so that it has a movement sensor that that the intensities of the light emitting unit can be controlled when the presence of humans or animals is detected in view of the teachings of Höglund.
Claims 26 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘557 in view of Kaas as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Höglund.
As to claim 26, WO ‘557 in view of Kaas teaches the system according to claim 23, but does not expressly teach that the system is capable of maintaining emittance of a predefined light exposure intensity in selected wavelength ranges of the light emitting unit(s) based on measurements of the light exposure from the light emitting unit(s). However, Höglund, in a related art, teaches regulating/maintaining emittance of a predefined light exposure intensity in selected wavelengths ranges based on measurements of light exposure from the light emitting units (e.g. paragraph [0077] of Höglund). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a light sensor for measuring light exposure from the light emitting unit, and regulating/maintaining emittance of a predefined light exposure in selected wavelength based on the measured light exposure values in view of the teachings of Höglund. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the lighting unit system of WO ‘557 in view of Kaas so that it is capable of measuring light exposure in order to control the time averaged intensities of the LEDs of the lighting unit in view of the teachings of Höglund, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claims 29-30, WO ‘557 in view of Kaas teaches the system according to claim 23, but does not expressly teach that the system is configured to control a ratio of light emittance, such as based on input from sensor(s), between the at least first UV-B LEDs and the at least second UV-B LED(s) such that the ratio of total light emittance of 283/297±5 nm light relative to total light emittance of 297/233±5 nm light can be selected. However, Höglund, in a related art: system and method for reducing microorganism with a light assembly, teaches that it was known in the art for a multi-LED light assembly emitting two different wavelengths of light to control the time average intensities by controlling a ratio of light emittance between the two LEDs (e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0058] and [0080] of Höglund). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of controlling the ratio of light emittance between the first UV-B LED and the at least second UV-B light of Kaas in view of the teachings of Höglund that such was a well-known way of controlling the time averaged intensity of the multi-LED lamp. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the light emitting unit system of WO ‘557 in view of Kaas to control the time averaged intensities of the LEDs in view of the teachings of Höglund, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to the exemplary language in claims 29-30, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light emitting unit system of WO ‘557 in view of Kaas to control the LEDs with those light emittance values, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0207475 to Kaler et al. (EFD 03/23/2021) is directed to continuous, real-time ultraviolet disinfection of populated indoor space systems where the system detects movement of living objects and then alters its normal course by turning the UV light off (e.g., paragraph [0103]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571 272-8506. 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792