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 .
Response to Amendment(s)
The Amendment, filed on 4/27/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Cancellation of claim(s) 4, 6-8, 12, 14, 19-26, 28-31, 37-39, 42-60 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13, 15-18, 27, 32-36, 40-41, 61-63 are pending in the instant application.
Claim(s) 40-41 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention without traversal.
Priority
Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/387,410.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/10/2024. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive by Examiner.
A. In response to Applicant's arguments that the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed invention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amendment claim language does not overcome cited reference to Mikihiko et al., (WO 2009/028720 A1) as it does not specify the electrode must only be on one of the side surfaces. See indication of allowable subject matter that does specifically designate the second side surface being free of an electrode.
Examiner maintains that Mikihiko et al., teaches an excimer lamp (1, Pgs. 6-8 of English translation, see at least Fig. 3), comprising: a dielectric (6, “discharge vessel 6 that forms the discharge space is formed of a dielectric material” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “dielectric material, a known material such as synthetic quartz glass …,” Pg. 8, ¶ [8]) forming at least one side of a sealed cavity (of 6); an electrode array (2, “light emitting unit,” ) disposed over a surface of the dielectric (6), the electrode array (2) comprising a plurality of electrodes (5, “excimer discharge electrode 5 is a flat plate electrode, and the flat plate electrodes of different polarities 5 are alternately arranged,” Pg. 12) of alternating polarity disposed at respective positions across at least one dimension of the excimer lamp (1).
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of the claims is deemed proper.
America Invents Act
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 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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 18, 32-36, 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikihiko et al., (WO 2009/028720 A1) as previously cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Mikihiko et al., teaches an excimer lamp (1, Pgs. 6-8 of English translation, see at least Fig. 3), comprising: a dielectric material (6, “discharge vessel 6 that forms the discharge space is formed of a dielectric material” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “dielectric material, a known material such as synthetic quartz glass …,” Pg. 8, ¶ [8]) forming a surface of a sealed cavity (of 6); the surface having a first side and a second side opposite the first side; an electrode array (2, “light emitting unit,” ) disposed over a portion of the first side of the dielectric material (6), the electrode array (2) comprising a plurality of electrodes (5, “excimer discharge electrode 5 is a flat plate electrode, and the flat plate electrodes of different polarities 5 are alternately arranged,” Pg. 12) of alternating polarity disposed at respective positions across at least one dimension of the excimer lamp (1); and a gas (7, "discharge gas flow passage") within the sealed cavity (of 6), the gas (7) being capable of emitting ultraviolet light (“ultraviolet light is emitted,” Pg. 16) in response to excitation of the electrode array (2).
Regarding Claim 2, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) of claim 1, wherein the dielectric (6) is a glass, quartz, sapphire, or ceramic material.
Regarding Claim 3, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) of any preceding claim 1, wherein the dielectric (6) has a flat surface or a curved surface.
Regarding Claim 5, Mikihiko et al., teaches the teaches the excimer lamp (1) of any preceding claim 1, further comprising drive circuitry (11) for driving the plurality of electrodes (5).
Regarding Claim 9, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) of claim 1, wherein the electrode array (2) is a two-dimensional array of electrodes, at least one dimension comprises a first dimension and a second dimension, and a polarity of the electrodes alternates along both the first dimension and the second dimension (5, flat, “excimer discharge electrode 5 is a flat plate electrode, and the flat plate electrodes of different polarities 5 are alternately arranged,” Pg. 12).
Regarding Claim 10, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) of any preceding claim 1, wherein the electrode array (2) has a stripe pattern (stripe pattern, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) of claim 1, wherein a tube (of 4, as clearly depicted in Fig. 3) comprising the dielectric (6) forms the sealed cavity (of 6), and the tube is a cylindrical tube, a helical tube, or a square tube.
Regarding Claim 15, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) of claim 13, wherein at least some of the plurality of electrodes (5) are disposed on a curved side of the tube (Fig. 4 & 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) of claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of electrodes (5) extends around a portion of a circumference of the tube (as clearly depicted in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 18, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) of any preceding claim 1, wherein adjacent electrodes of the plurality of electrodes (5) are spaced apart by a distance of no more than a distance in a range of 8 to 12 millimeters (7 mm, Pgs. 20-21).
Regarding Claim 32, Mikihiko et al., teaches an excimer lamp (1, Pgs. 6-8 of English translation, see at least Fig. 3), comprising: a dielectric material (6, “discharge vessel 6 that forms the discharge space is formed of a dielectric material” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “dielectric material, a known material such as synthetic quartz glass …,” Pg. 8, ¶ [8]) forming a surface of a sealed cavity (of 6); the surface having a first side and a second side opposite the first side; an electrode array (2, “light emitting unit,” ) disposed over a portion of the first side of the dielectric material (6); the electrode array (2) comprising a plurality of electrodes (5) of alternating polarity disposed at respective positions across at least one dimension of the lamp; a window (3, “window”); and a gas (7) within the sealed cavity (of 6), the gas (7) being capable of emitting ultraviolet light through the window (3) in response to excitation of the electrode array (2).
Regarding Claim 33, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) system of claim 32, further comprising a cover (4, “lamp vessel) attached to the window (3) to form a housing of the excimer lamp (1) system.
Regarding Claim 34, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) system of claim 32, further comprising lamp support structures (flanges of 4) attached to the sealed cavity (of 6).
Regarding Claim 35, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) system of claim 34, further comprising a gasket (“It has a round window, and this round window is attached to the container via a gasket”) attached to the window (3) and the lamp support structures (flanges of 4).
Regarding Claim 36, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp (1) system of claim 35, wherein the gasket is resistant (“It has a round window, and this round window is attached to the container via a gasket”) to ultraviolet light (in order to operate).
Regarding Claim 63, Mikihiko et al., teaches the excimer lamp of claim 1, wherein the gas is capable of emitting ultraviolet light through at least the second side of the dielectric material in response to excitation of the electrode array.
In regards to the recitation “capable of emitting ultraviolet light”, it has been held that the recitation of an element being capable of performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claim(s) 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mikihiko et al., in view of Ueno et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0119201 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Mikihiko et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Mikihiko et al., is silent regarding the electrode array having a checkerboard pattern.
In the same field of endeavor, Ueno et al., teaches an excimer lamp (¶ [0239]) wherein the electrode array is provided as either striped (as similarly taught by Mikihiko et al.,) or checkered (¶ [0219]), thus exemplifying recognized equivalent materials of the electrode array types in the art. Ueno et al., teaches the suitability of using an electrode array being provided as striped or checkered in order to ensure adequate discharge of electrodes.
In light of this teaching, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the electrode array of Mikihiko et al., as checkered instead of as striped, since the selection of any of these known equivalents would be considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Ueno's teaching.
3. Claim(s) 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mikihiko et al. in view of Rodriguez et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0062468 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Mikihiko et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Mikihiko et al., is silent regarding a second sealed cavity (a second excimer lamp).
In the same field of endeavor, Rodriguez et al., teaches a module of multiple excimer gas lamps (¶ [0050]) in order to yield the luminaire to have greater functionality and hence marketability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the second excimer lamp, as disclosed by Rodriguez et al., in the teaching of Mikihiko et al., in order to yield the luminaire to have greater functionality and hence marketability.
It should be noted that the superimposition of the dual references combined would result in the second tube of Rodriguez et al., comprising a second dielectric (6 as taught by Mikihiko et al.,) forming a second sealed cavity (of 6); a second electrode array (2) disposed over a surface of the second dielectric (6), the second electrode array (2) comprising a second plurality of electrodes (5) of alternating polarity disposed at respective positions across at least one dimension of the excimer lamp (1); and a gas (7) within the second sealed cavity (of 6) capable of emitting ultraviolet light in response to excitation of the second electrode array (2).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using a second excimer as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
4. Claim(s) 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mikihiko et al.
Regarding Claim 27, Mikihiko et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above) and further teaches a first electrode (1st 5) and a second electrode (2nd 5). Mikihiko et al., is silent regarding the electrode array specificity.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first electrode is closer to an edge of the sealed cavity than the second electrode, and wherein the first electrode has a width smaller than that of the second electrode in a direction perpendicular to the edge, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as 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. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing the first electrode is closer to an edge of the sealed cavity than the second electrode, and wherein the first electrode has a width smaller than that of the second electrode in a direction perpendicular to the edge in order to improve the adequate discharge of the excimer lamp during operation, while maintaining pressure.
Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claim(s) 61 & 62 are objected 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.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim(s) 61 recites inter alia; wherein the second side of the surface is free of an electrode.
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Mikihiko et al.,) does not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
Claim(s) 62 recites inter alia; wherein the electrode array is disposed over the portion of the first side of the dielectric material such that the electrode array is disposed over less than an entirety of a circumference of the sealed cavity.
The prior art of record (most comprehensive prior art of record to Mikihiko et al.,) does not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment does not overcome the current prior art of record, therefore:
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R. Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights