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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been obviated by amendments to the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
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 19 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.
The limitation “wherein at least one of the first active layer or the second active layer includes a first layer and a second layer” renders claim 19 indefinite. The Examiner believes it is inherent that a first active layer or second active layer would necessarily include a first or second layer. It is unclear what this limitation is attempting to further convey and whether it is actually further limiting. Please provide appropriate corrections and/or explanation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,048,853 (hereinafter ‘853 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 18 of the instant application, claim 1 of the ‘853 Patent discloses:
A light irradiation apparatus (Claim 1, line 1), comprising:
a first light emitter including a first n type semiconductor layer, a first active layer disposed on the first n type semiconductor layer, and a first p type semiconductor layer disposed on the first active layer (Claim 1, lines 2-5), the first light emitter configured to emit first light (Claim 1, lines 10-11);
a second light emitter including a second n type semiconductor layer, a second active layer disposed on the second n type semiconductor layer, and a second p type semiconductor layer disposed on the second active layer (Claim 1, lines 6-10), the second light emitter configured to emit second light (Claim 1, lines 10-11); and
a controller electrically connected to the first light emitter and the second light emitter and configured to control the first light emitter and the second light emitter (Claim 1, lines 19-21),
wherein the controller is further configured to allow to (1) start an application of the first light to a target at a predetermined time before a first application of the second light to the target and (2) apply the first light to the target without interruption until the application of the first light is finished (Claim 1, lines 22-27),
wherein the controller is further configured to allow a second application of the second light to the target to occur after the application of the first light is finished (Claim 1, lines 28-30), and
wherein the first light emitter and the second light emitter are configured to emit the first light and the second light, respectively, at timings close to each other, regardless of whether the timings overlap or not, the first light being emitted based on a first band gap difference of a first energy band resulting from an intrinsic material of the first active layer and the second light being emitted based on a second band gap difference of a second energy band resulting from an intrinsic material of the second active layer (Claim 1, lines 10-18).
Claim 1 of the ‘853 Patent anticipates instant claim 18. Therefore, the instant claim 18 is not patentable over claim 1 of the ‘853 Patent.
Regarding claim 18 of the instant application, claim 18 of the ‘853 Patent discloses:
A light irradiation apparatus (Claim 18, line 1), comprising:
a first light emitter including a first n type semiconductor layer, a first active layer disposed on the first n type semiconductor layer, and a first p type semiconductor layer disposed on the first active layer, the first light emitter configured to emit first light (Claim 18, lines 2-6);
a second light emitter including a second n type semiconductor layer, a second active layer disposed on the second n type semiconductor layer, and a second p type semiconductor layer disposed on the second active layer, the second light emitter configured to emit second light (Claim 18, lines 7-12); and
a controller electrically connected to the first light emitter and the second light emitter and configured to control the first light emitter and the second light emitter (Claim 18, lines 13-15),
wherein the controller is further configured to allow to (1) start an application of the first light to a target at a predetermined time before a first application of the second light to the target and (2) apply the first light to the target without interruption until the application of the first light is finished (Claim 18, lines 16-21),
wherein the controller is further configured to allow a second application of the second light to the target to occur after the application of the first light is finished (Claim 18, lines 22-24), and
wherein the first light emitter and the second light emitter are configured to emit the first light and the second light, respectively, at timings close to each other, regardless of whether the timings overlap or not, the first light being emitted based on a first band gap difference of a first energy band resulting from an intrinsic material of the first active layer and the second light being emitted based on a second band gap difference of a second energy band resulting from an intrinsic material of the second active layer (Claim 18, lines 26-34).
Claim 18 of the ‘853 Patent anticipates instant claim 18. Therefore, the instant claim 18 is not patentable over claim 18 of the ‘853 Patent.
Regarding claim 19 of the instant application, claim 1 of the ‘853 Patent discloses:
The light irradiation apparatus of claim 18, wherein at least one of the first active layer or the second active layer includes a first layer and a second layer (Claim 19, lines 1-3).
Claim 19 of the ‘853 Patent anticipates instant claim 19. Therefore, the instant claim 19 is not patentable over claim 19 of the ‘853 Patent.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting in view of U.S. Patent ‘853 over instant claim 1 was closely considered. However, all limitations of the instant independent claim 1 are not anticipated or rendered obvious by the claims in U.S. Patent ‘853. In particular, instant claim 1 includes the limitation “wherein a first time in which the first light is irradiated is longer than a second time in which the second light is irradiated” which is not found in the claims in U.S. Patent ‘853.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 18, the prior art of record (namely Ball, Liao, Cumbie, and Ribeiro) does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination wherein the controller is configured to allow to (1) start an application of the first light to a target to be sterilized at a predetermined time before a first application of the second light to the target, and (2) apply the first light to the target without interruption until the application of the first light is finished, and wherein the controller is further configured to allow a second application of the second light to the target to occur after the application of the first light is finished. No other prior art reference could be found that teaches or renders obvious the limitations of instant claims 1 and 18. Due to their dependency on independent claims 1 and 18, instant claims 2-17 and 19 are also considered to contain allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). *In particular, the non-statutory double patenting rejections detailed hereinabove must be overcome.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST).
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights