DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The dependent claims should read “[[A]] The luminaire according to claim” in all instances for the best antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deal (US 2009/0191100) in view of Fernando (WO 2005/031437) in view of Ogg (US 2019/0032875).
Regarding claim 1, Deal (2009/0191100) teaches –
A luminaire (abstract, Figs. 1 and 5-6) comprising:
a housing (the light fixture 122 is mounted in a ceiling, thereby defining a housing, see also fig. 1; pars. 25-26),
a light engine for emitting a light output (the light fixtures include UV-C emitting bulbs 108 and fluorescent bulbs 124),
the light engine being located in the housing (Figs. 6a-b show this), and
an optical component for receiving the light output (cover 120, par. 28),
the optical component being provided at the light exit such that at least a part of the light exit is covered by the optical component (figs. 1 and 6a-b show this cover covering the housing), wherein
the optical component has an input side facing the light engine, an output side facing away from the light engine (Figs. 1 and 6a shows that the cover positioned such that a side faces inwards towards the light and another side faces away), and
a wall structure separating the input side and the output side (the cover has a body of mass that intercedes the two opposing faces of the cover), wherein the light engine comprises
a first light source for emitting a first light output component and a second light source for emitting a second light output component, the first light output component and the second light output component together representing the light output of the light engine (pars. 25-26 disclose two different light outputs from the light emitting component of the device including bulb 108 and bulb 124), wherein
the first light output component comprises visible light (fluorescent bulb 124) and the second light output component comprises ultraviolet radiation (UV-C emitting bulb 108), and wherein
the wall structure of the optical component is transmissive for visible light and non-transmissive for ultraviolet radiation (par. 28).
Deal appears to be silent with regards to a separate light exit window, and with regards to an interior volume that is transparent to UV and visible light along with the input and output side.
Regarding the limitations directed towards the wall structure and interior volume: Fernando (WO 2005/031437) teaches a window for selectively transmitting light (abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) comprising an input and output surface (see fig. 1, the glass layers sandwiching the light-control layer) and an interior volume (the cavity 60 between the glass, see fig. 6) that is transmissive to visible light (a cavity that does not comprise means to block light would perform the function of transmitting light) and wherein the wall structure is transmissive to visible light and non-transmissive for ultraviolet radiation (absorbing layer 58 and light control layer from figs. 6 and 1 respectively transmit visible light while blocking UV and other wavelengths of light; p. 6 final 8 lines). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Deal such that the input side, the output side, and the wall structure of the optical component together delimit an interior volume of the optical component, wherein the input side, the output side and the interior volume of the optical component are transmissive for visible light and for ultraviolet radiation as taught by Fernando to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully and controllably block and allow undesirable and desirable wavelengths from transmitting from the device to arrive at an improved sterilizing luminaire.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a light exit window: Ogg (US 2019/0032875) teaches as luminaire with controllable output (title, abstract) wherein the device includes a light exit window (figs. 3-5 diffuser lens 66) for protecting the light fixture and creating soft light conditions (par. 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Deal such that the device includes a light exit window at the light exit as taught by Ogg to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to create soft lighting conditions for better occupant comfort and to protect the interior components to arrive at an improved sterilizing luminaire.
Regarding claim 2, modified Deal further teaches the optical component comprises a plurality of cells arranged in a grid (see fig. 8, cells 66), each cell having an input window, an output window (fig. 9 showing internal and external planes 52 and 54, respectively), and a cell wall separating the input window and the output window (any of the interior layers shown in fig. 9 read on this structure, particularly polarizing layers 76 and 78), the input windows together constituting the input side of the optical component, the output windows together constituting the output side of the optical component (Fig. 7 shows this), and the cell walls together constituting the wall structure of the optical component (fig. 9 shows this).
Regarding claim 3, modified Deal appears to be silent with regards to the particular shape of the cells, however this modification of the cells of modified Deal to be hexagonal or cylindrical is merely the change in shape of an existing prior art feature, and the mere change in shape of a prior art element is an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 4, modified Deal further teaches the wall structure of the optical component is capable of absorbing UV radiation (p. 12 lines 14-16 of Fernando).
Regarding claim 5, modified Deal further teaches the wall structure of the optical component comprises glass or polycarbonate (p. 13 last 2 lines disclose part of the wall structure being polycarbonate).
Regarding claim 9, modified Deal further teaches wall structures that are capable of both reflecting and absorbing UV radiation (par. 2 on page 3 of Fernando discloses both types of filtering), and therefore the modification to Deal to include both types of wall structure parts would be nothing more than obvious to try to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to best filter out the potentially harmful UV light to arrive at an improved device, and there are a finite number of identifiable configurations of the absorbing or reflecting parts that one could combine to arrive at the claimed configuration without undue experimentation. MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deal (US 2009/0191100) in view of Fernando (WO 2005/031437) in view of Ogg (US 2019/0032875) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Keiji (JP 3662068B2) and Taylor (CA 2628741).
Regarding claim 6, modified Deal is set forth with regards to claim 5 above but appears to be silent with regards to a glass substrate having a bilayer coating of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide.
Keiji (JP 3662068B2) teaches zinc oxide and titanium dioxide both are advantageously photocatalytically interactive with UV light (p. 2 par. 2 discloses both materials as photocatalysts for use with UV light) and Taylor (CA 2628741) teaches the same materials being used on glass as a UV blocker (example 9, p. 66 par. 70 teaches a UV blocking coating comprising zinc oxide and titanium oxide). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Deal such that the wall structure performing the function of blocking the UV light include a glass substrate having a bilayer coating of titanium dioxide and zinc dioxide as suggested by both Keiji and Taylor to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better filter the UV light and to further treat the air within the enclosure as desired by Deal to arrive at an improved device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deal (US 2009/0191100) in view of Fernando (WO 2005/031437) in view of Ogg (US 2019/0032875) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Palmer (US 2014/0084185).
Regarding claim 7, modified Deal is set forth with regards to claim 1 above but appears to be silent with regards to a collimator.
Palmer (US 2014/0084185) teaches a UV sterilization fixture (title) including a collimator (Fig. 3 reflectors 18 and 20 serve to collimate light, par. 17) for directing the UV light for better sterilization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Deal such that it includes a collimator for collimating the UV radiation from the second light component to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better direct the UV light for sterilization of the target space.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deal (US 2009/0191100) in view of Fernando (WO 2005/031437) in view of Ogg (US 2019/0032875) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sokolov (US 2019/0293862).
Regarding claim 8, modified Deal is set forth with regards to claim 1 above, but appears to be silent with regards to an edge-lit light guide panel.
Sokolov (US 2019/0293862) teaches a low-profile light source (abstract) that includes an edge-lit light guide panel (par. 27; Fig. 1 light guide 2 that is edge-lit). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by deal to include an edge-lit light guide panel as the visible light source as taught by Sokolov to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the low-profile and compact design.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deal (US 2009/0191100) in view of Fernando (WO 2005/031437) in view of Ogg (US 2019/0032875) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Dobrinsky (US 2016/0074548).
Regarding claim 10, modified Deal is set forth with regards to claim 1 above but appears to be silent with regards to a coating of a photoluminescent material on the wall structure capable of converting the UV radiation of the second light output into visible light.
Dobrinsky (US 2016/0074548) teaches a UV luminaire including a surface coated with a photoluminescent material for converting the UV light into visible light (par. 67) to indicate the operation of the system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Deal to include a photoluminescent material on the wall structure to both absorb the UV light and reemit visible light as taught by Dobrinsky to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to both serve the function of filtering harmful UV light from being emitted into an occupied space and to indicate the operation of the device to arrive at a more convenient and safe sterilizing luminaire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights