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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 21 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 21 claims “wherein the one or more optical elements are formed by an optical fiber that starts from the light source increases in cross- section in the manner of a taper”. It is unclear what the underlined part of claim 21 means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18-20, 22, 24, 26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KAN et al. (US 20080204888 A1).
Regarding claim 18, KAN discloses an optical device (figs. 4 and 17) comprising:
a light source unit (4000) comprising a light source (491) and a light-emitting surface (of 491s), which defines a light source plane (of 490/491s) and is configured to emit radiation in a UV wavelength range [0041], wherein the light-emitting surface is configured to emit the radiation from the light source unit in an angular range relative (of 491) to a main radiation direction (from 491), which is perpendicular with respect to the light source plane (of 490/491s);
a reflector (410), which is arranged at a predetermined distance from the light-emitting surface in the main radiation direction, and which is configured to receive the radiation emitted by the light-emitting surface and to reflect it at least in a direction opposite (from 410 to 430) to the main radiation direction,
wherein the reflector (410) comprises a free form (i.e. non symmetrical mirror surface in translational or rotational symmetry), which is configured such that the radiation reflected by the reflector is projected onto a surface (fig. 4; un illustrated post 440) to be irradiated, which is defined in the room and which, in the direction opposite (for rays reflected from 410) to the main radiation direction, extends beyond (post 440 a surface is irradiated that is behind 490/491s) the light source plane (of 490, 491) as viewed from the reflector (410), and
wherein a distribution of an irradiance of the radiation projected onto the surface (fig. 4; un illustrated post 440) by the reflector (410) is substantially homogeneous [0046] [0069] (via light diffusion from diffusor 420 and/or 440) [0050] within the surface; and
a blocking element (430) configured to absorb or reflect the radiation (430 reflects and absorbs some light), which, due to its angle of radiation, passes from the light-emitting surface (491) beyond an edge (upper edge of 410) of the free form of the reflector (410) (light from 491 reflected off 410 travels horizontally to the left past upper edge (of 410) to 430 which is behind 410)
(fig. 4; 4000, UV LEE 491, reflector 410, second reflector 430, transparent or translucent diffusing cover element 440);
[0041]
[0050]
[0071]
(fig. 17; UV LED 1404, reflector 1402, pivotable second reflector 1403 on pivot 1408, diffusor 1405)
[0093].
Regarding claim 19, KAN discloses that the light source comprises one or more individual UV LEDs [0041].
Regarding claim 20, KAN discloses that the light source unit (491) comprises an optical element or a plurality of optical elements (of 491) [0041] associated with the one or more UV LEDs, and wherein the light emitting surface comprises one or more optical elements (see concave lens of 491).
Regarding claim 22, KAN discloses that the one or more optical elements (of 491) [0041] comprise a lens (see concave lens of 491).
Regarding claim 24, KAN discloses that the light-emitting surface (of 491s, 490) has a length in a first direction (fig. 4, vertical) perpendicular to the main radiation direction (from 491) and a width in a second direction (fig. 4, into the page) perpendicular to the main radiation direction , which together span the light source plane (of 490/491s), and wherein the length is greater than the width (see figs. 9-10, LEE arrangements)
[0050 Note any number of LEE’s can be used, which is inclusive of arrangements of LEE 491 arrays of various length to width ratios and/or of various length dimensions and width dimensions, for the LEE arrays].
[0055].
Regarding claim 26, KAN discloses that an aspect ratio of the length to the width is 32 or less (see figs. 9-10, LEE arrangements; 16 long to 3 wide), and
wherein an aspect ratio of the length to the width is 2 or more (see figs. 9-10, LEE arrangements; 16 long to 3 wide),
[0050 Note any number of LEE’s can be used, which is inclusive of arrangements of LEE 491 arrays of various length to width aspect ratios and/or of various length dimensions and width dimensions, for the LEE arrays].
[0079-0081].
Regarding claim 30, KAN discloses that the free form of the reflector (410) is configured such that the surface (fig. 4, unillustrated) to be irradiated (post 440) with homogeneous distribution [0046] [0069] (via diffusors 420, and/or 440) of the irradiance extends substantially in a second direction perpendicular (see fig. 1, 100 relative to 2 to 3) [0010-0011] to the main radiation direction (491 to 410) starting from an axis, which extends along the main radiation direction through the light-emitting surface (of 491) .
[0010-0011 Note optical system is disposed and aligned relative to the target surface in a predetermined way, is inclusive of perpendicular to the target surface]
[0046 Note walls, ceilings can be the irradiated target surface].
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.
2. Claim(s) 25, 27-29, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KAN et al. (US 20080204888 A1).
Regarding claim 25, KAN discloses the length of the light-emitting surface (of 491, 490) in the first direction is
wherein the width of the light-emitting surface (of 491, 490) in the second direction is
[0050 Note any number of LEE’s can be used, which is inclusive of arrangements of LEE 491 arrays of various length dimensions and width dimensions, for the LEE arrays]
[0055].
Regarding claim 25, KAN discloses all the limitations as expressly recited in claim 25.
The only difference is that the exact dimension(s) “the length of the light-emitting surface in the first direction is 16 mm or less, and/or wherein the width of the light-emitting surface in the second direction is 2 mm or less” is not disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed dimensions/sizes since it is well known in the art that light-emitting surfaces can be of various lengths/widths/dimensions/sizes. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try differing light-emitting surface dimensions/sizes, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 27, KAN discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (of 491) [0041] and the light-emitting surface (of 491s, 490) are configured to emit the radiation in a first angular range (from 491s) relative to the main radiation direction (from 491) within a plane spanned by the first direction (fig. 4, vertical) and the main radiation direction, and wherein a maximum angle of the first angular range is
In regards to claim(s) 27, KAN differ(s) from the claimed invention by not showing the stated ranges disclosed (i.e., a maximum angle of the first angular range is 30 or more, and 90 or less).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the stated ranges disclosed, 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.
Regarding claim 28, KAN discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (of 491) [0041] and the light-emitting surface (of 491s, 490) (of 491) are configured to emit the radiation in a second angular range (from 491) relative to the main radiation direction (from 491) within a plane spanned by the second direction (fig. 4, into the page) and the main radiation direction, and wherein a maximum angle of the second angular range is
In regards to claim(s) 28, KAN differ(s) from the claimed invention by not showing the stated ranges disclosed (i.e., wherein a maximum angle of the second angular range is 30 or more, and 90 or less).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the stated ranges disclosed, 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.
Regarding claim 29, KAN discloses wherein the predetermined distance between the light-emitting surface (of 491) and the reflector (410) in the main radiation direction is
Regarding claim 29, KAN discloses all the limitations as expressly recited in claim 29.
The only difference is that the exact dimension(s) “distance between the light-emitting surface and the reflector in the main radiation direction is 20 mm or less” is not disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed distance dimensions since it is well known in the art that the distance between the light emitter surface and reflector can be of various dimensions/sizes. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try differing distances between the light emitter surface and reflector, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 31, KAN discloses the surface (fig. 4, unillustrated) to be irradiated (post 440) extends substantially parallel [0010-0011] to the light source plane (of 490/491s), and
wherein a ratio between the length in the second direction and a distance of the surface to be irradiated from the light source plane (of 490/491s); is 15 or less, and/or
wherein a ratio between the width in the first direction and the distance of the surface to be irradiated from the light source plane (of 490/491s); is 15 or less.
[0010-0011 Note optical system is disposed and aligned relative to the target surface in a predetermined way, is inclusive of perpendicular to the target surface]
[0046 Note walls, ceilings can be the irradiated target surface].
Regarding claim 31, KAN discloses all the limitations as expressly recited in claim 29.
The only difference is that the exact dimension(s) “wherein a ratio between the length in the second direction and a distance of the surface to be irradiated from the light source plane is 15 or less, and/or wherein a ratio between the width in the first direction and the distance of the surface to be irradiated from the light source plane is 15 or less” is not disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed ratios since it is well known in the art that the ratios between the targeted surface and light emitter surface and/or reflector can be of various dimensions/sizes. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try differing distances between the light emitter surface and reflector, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 32, KAN discloses wherein the free form of the reflector (410) is mirror symmetrical with respect to a plane spanned by the main radiation direction (from 491) and the second direction (see fig. 1, 100 relative to 2 to 3) [0010-0011], and has a height in the main radiation direction in a range from from
Regarding claim 32, KAN discloses all the limitations as expressly recited in claim 29.
The only difference is that the exact dimension(s) of the reflector having “a height in the main radiation direction in a range from 15 mm to 90 mm, has a width in the first direction in a range from 40 mm to 18o mm, and has a length in the second direction in a range from 50mm to 250 mm” is not disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed reflector dimensions/sizes since it is well known in the art that reflectors can be of various dimensions/sizes. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try differing distances between the light emitter surface and reflector, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
2. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KAN et al. (US 20080204888 A1) in view of GIBBONS et al. (EP 2413988 B1).
Regarding claim 21, KAN discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (of 491) [0041] are formed
But KAN fails to disclose an optical fiber that starts from the light source increases in cross- section in the manner of a taper
GIBBONS , however, discloses a UV light source (fig. 3a, 271) that has one or more optical elements (203) that are formed by an optical fiber (203) that is tapered /”starts from the light source increases in cross- section in the manner of a taper” [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of KAN, with optical elements formed by a tapered optical fiber, as taught by GIBBONS , to use as a substitution of one known optical element type (i.e. tapered optical fiber) for another to obtain the diffused UV light propagation [0019].
2. Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KAN et al. (US 20080204888 A1) in view of LOTT (DE 102014104851 B4).
Regarding claim 23, KAN discloses wherein the one optical element comprises a
But KAN fails to disclose wherein the one optical element comprises a light-absorbing ring.
LOTT, however, discloses an optical element (fig. 1, 1, 4) comprises a light-absorbing ring (abstract Note metal housing) (housing 2) which encloses a central region with the light-emitting surface (of 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of KAN, with optical element comprises a light-absorbing ring, as taught by LOTT, to use for holding the UV light for structural stability (abstract).
2. Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KAN et al. (US 20080204888 A1) in view of (KR 200375630 Y1).
Regarding claim 33, KAN discloses wherein the light source comprises one or more individual light sources (491), which are configured to emit light in the UV-A wavelength range [0041] or in the UV-B wavelength range [0041 Note ultraviolet is inclusive of UVA, UVB ranges], and
wherein the surface (fig. 4, unillustrated) [0046 Note room wall or ceiling] to be irradiated
But KAN fails to disclose the surface to be irradiated is coated with a layer which comprises titanium dioxide.
(KR 200375630 Y1), however, discloses a wall surface that is painted/coated with a layer of paint which comprises titanium dioxide (pgs. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of KAN which irradiates room walls, with a wall surface coated with paint that comprises titanium dioxide, as taught by (KR 200375630 Y1), to use as a substitution of one known interior wall paint/coating type (i.e. containing titanium dioxide) for another to obtain the photocatalyst effects of titanium dioxide for oxidizing contaminants and/or bacteria (pgs. 5-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Smyth whose telephone number is 571-270-1746. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00AM - 6:00PM; Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW SMYTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights