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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…wherein: (i) the proximity sensor is configured …on the basis of (i) a radiant flux … and (b) the sensor signal…; and/or (ii) the proximity sensor is configured to … on the basis of (i) a radiant flux … and (ii) the sensor signal ….” The numbers “(i)” “(ii)” “(b)” are not consistently labeled.
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 6 and 9 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.
Claims 6 and 9 are Markush group claims and each recites “wherein … selected from a group comprising...” Markush claim by its nature should include a closed group but the transitional phrase “comprising” indicates the recited group is open, thus the scope of the claim is unclear. See MPEP 2111.03
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220016437 A1 [hereinafter Jarausch].
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “(i) the proximity sensor is configured to determine a distance…; and/or (ii) the proximity sensor is configured to estimate an average distance...”). Since these two limitations are connected by “and/or”, the claim is interpreted as only required to satisfy one limitation. Here the reference teaches the first limitation.
Jarausch teaches a light generating system (Abstract: “System and methods to generate and control light for use in therapeutic, aesthetic, disinfection, and other light-related applications”) comprising:
(a) a lighting module (Fig. 1A- apparatus 100), wherein the lighting module comprises a light source (Fig. 1A- light source 101) configured to generate light source radiation comprising UV radiation,
(b) a proximity sensor (Fig. 1A- sensor 105), and
(c) a control system (Fig. 1A- controller 104);
wherein:
the UV radiation comprises radiation having a wavelength in the 280-320 nm wavelength range (para. [0044]: light source 101 may emit light “of UV - B light having wavelengths ranging from 280 nm to 320 nm”);
the proximity sensor is configured to generate a proximity sensor signal in dependence of a presence of an object in a field of view of the proximity sensor (para. [0065]: “a distance or proximity sensor may be used to measure a distance between apparatus 100 and a user”);
the control system is configured to control the light source in dependence of the proximity sensor signal (paras. [0049-0051 and 0065]: “controller 104 may control light source 101 to emit UV-B light having a specific intensity and duration… controller 104 may use information regarding the surroundings of apparatus 100, such as the distance from light source 101 to a given target area… to control one or more channels of light source 101 to generate light that satisfies, e.g., certain characteristics associated with one or more desired health outcomes”); and wherein:
(i) the proximity sensor is configured to determine a distance between the object and the light source (para. [0065]: “a distance or proximity sensor may be used to measure a distance between apparatus 100 and a user”);
the control system is configured to determine a dosage Da of UV radiation received by the object on the basis of (i) a radiant flux of the UV radiation over time and (b) the sensor signal of the proximity sensor (paras. [0061 and 0065]: “controller 104 may receive an enable signal, e.g., from sensor 105 prior to controlling an intensity and time of UV-B light exposure of the skin…a distance or proximity sensor may be used to measure a distance between apparatus 100 and a user to adjust the intensity of light emission to deliver a controlled dose of light to the user’s skin”); and
the control system is configured to relate the dosage Da of UV radiation received by the object to a predetermined safe dosage limit Ds and on the basis thereon control the radiant flux of the UV radiation (para. [0061]: “controller 104 may limit, e.g., the total UV exposure or dose (mJ/cm²) for a user to a pre-defined period or time... controller 104 may receive an enable signal, e.g., from user interface 106 or sensor 105 prior to controlling an intensity and time of UV-B light exposure of the skin…To further protect users from overexposure, controller 104 may comprise certain daily wavelength or dosage limits, e.g., cumulative UV-B and/or UV - A exposure limits defined by a total exposure time that apparatus 100 may actively generate”).
However, Jarausch does not specifically teach that the lighting module is functionally attachable to a display comprising device. Jarausch teaches its “apparatus 100 may be implemented as a ‘retrofit’ device that may be deployed in an existing space… and removably affixed…using mounting hardware 109, such as fasteners, suction-ups, stick-on adhesives, Velcro, or magnets…to allow for convenient removal, recharging, or replacement of battery 107” (see para. [0047]). As such, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the apparatus as taught by Jarausch, using its disclosed hardware mounting means, to attach the apparatus to a display device. A display device, for example, a computer monitor, provides a comparable support surface for such mounting hardware. Further, because Jarausch’s attachment means are removable and do not require permanent installation, attaching the retrodict apparatus to a display device would have been a simple and fast mounting process without changing the existing configuration of the display device.
Regarding Claim 6:
Jarausch teaches the light generating system according to claim 1. Jarausch further teaches wherein the proximity sensor is selected from a group comprising a camera, a passive infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a microwave sensor, a time of flight sensor, and an audio sensor (para. [0064]: teaches the sensor can be a microphone to take audio input, a camera to capture user’s gesture).
Regarding Claim 8:
Jarausch teaches the light generating system according to claim 1. Jarausch further teaches wherein the lighting module is configured to generate in a first operational mode the UV radiation and in a second operational mode visible light, wherein the visible light is white light having a CRI of at least 80 (paras. [0049, 0053]: “controller 104 may control light source 101 to emit UV - B light having a specific intensity and duration while, at the same time, controlling light source 101 to emit visible or infrared light having a certain intensity and duration… in the visible spectrum, controller 104 may adjust relative intensities of light source 101 to generate light having a ‘blue-rich’ spectrum”. Because CRI 80 was a common baseline/acceptable color-rendering level for general LED and fluorescent lighting, including ordinary commercial/residential lighting, it would have been obvious to select a CRI ≥ 80 for the visible light mode of Jarausch’s home/commercial lighting apparatus).
Regarding Claim 9:
Jarausch teaches the light generating system according to claim 1. Jarausch further teaches attaching elements selected from the group of a rail, a magnet, a clamping element, a snapper element, and Velcro; wherein the attaching elements are functionally coupled to the lighting module (para. [0047]: “apparatus 100 may be …removably affixed…using mounting hardware 109, such as fasteners, suction-ups, stick-on adhesives, Velcro, or magnets”).
Regarding Claim 10:
Jarausch teaches the light generating system according to claim 1. Jarausch further teaches wherein the lighting module comprises the proximity sensor and the control system (the apparatus 100 includes the sensor 105 and controller 104).
Regarding Claim 13:
Jarausch teaches a method of providing UV radiation in a space, wherein the method comprises using the light generating system according to claim 1 (Abstract: “methods to generate and control light for use in therapeutic, aesthetic, disinfection, and other light-related applications”).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch in view of US 2015/0311941 A1 [hereinafter Sorrentino].
Regarding Claim 2:
Jarausch teaches the light generating system of claim 1. Jarausch further teaches the control system is configured to keep the light source in the off-mode in dependence of the proximity sensor signal (para. [0105]: “Real-time sensors may also be used to turn off UV-C light, e.g., once a motion detector or other input suggests the presence of people or animals in or near the shower”).
However, Jarausch does not specially note that a slider element, wherein the slider element is slidable between (i) a first position wherein the slider element is neither configured downstream of the proximity sensor nor of the light source and (ii) wherein in the second position the control system is configured to keep the light source in the off-mode in dependence of the proximity sensor signal.
Sorrentino teaches a mobile device includes sensors 108 to “detect sound, light, proximity, … and many other environmental characteristics,” and a “flash 120 is a light emitting apparatus” (para. [0032]). Specifically, Sorrentino teaches a slider element, wherein the slider element is slidable between (i) a first position wherein the slider element is neither configured downstream of the proximity sensor nor of the light source (para. [0036]: “In position 1, the movable lens cover 216 does not occlude any sensors 108, cameras 102, or the flash 120”) and (ii) a second position wherein the slider element is configured downstream of the proximity sensor (para. [0037]: “The movable lens cover 216 can be one or more pieces. For example, there may be an apparatus that covers the ... the sensors 108 located on the front of the mobile device 100, and a second apparatus that covers the…flash 120”).
As such, Jarausch in view of Sorrentino teaches in the wherein in the second position the control system is configured to keep the light source in the off-mode in dependence of the proximity sensor signal. In the modified apparatus, the movable lens cover only covers the sensors, as taught in Sorrentino, and blocking the sensor would trigger the light source to be turned off, as suggested by Jarausch.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the modify the lighting apparatus in Jarausch to add a moveable cover as taught in Sorrentino, so that the UV light can be turned off when the cover is blocking the sensor, providing a manual safety mode in which covering the sensor causes the UV light source to remain off.
Regarding Claim 3:
Jarausch in view of Sorrentino teaches the light generating system of claim 2. Sorrentino further teaches wherein the slider element is slidable between (i) the first position and (iii) a third position wherein the slider element is configured downstream of both the proximity sensor and the light source (para. [0036]: “In position 1, the movable lens cover 216 does not occlude any sensors 108… or the flash 120… In position 5, the movable lens cover 216 occludes all cameras 102 on the mobile device 100, the flash 120, and all sensors 108”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch in view of Sorrentino, further in view of US5688037A [hereinafter Chen].
Regarding Claim 4:
Jarausch teaches the light generating system of claim 1. However, Jarausch does not specially note that wherein the slider element is slidable in a fourth position downstream of the light source and in one or more other positions, wherein the light generating system further comprises a tactile switch, wherein the slider element is configured to contact the tactile switch when positioned in the fourth position; wherein upon contacting the tactile switch, the control system is configured to keep or switch the light source in the off-mode.
Jarausch in view of Sorrentino teaches in one or more positions, the movable lens cover can cover the flash and/or the sensor, as discussed.
Chen teaches a light device where the lamp and switch are in the same shade assembly, and when the shade is closed against the base, the base depresses the push-button switch and turns off the lamp (“a shade having a lamp and an electrical control circuit fixed within the shade… and a push-button switch resiliently held in the shade… whereby upon closing of the shade on the base, the push-button switch will be retracted into the shade to turn off the lamp.” Chen further teaches “upon depressing of the push-button switch 41 by closing (C) the shade portion 23… the push-button switch 41 is retracted inwardly… to disconnect the first wire 43 to interrupt a power supply to the lamp 3 for automatically turning off the lamp 3.” See Chen 1:39-47 and 3:11-17).
As such, modifying the Jarausch-Sorrentino lighting apparatus to add the switch and circuit feature from Chen, so that when the removable cover reaches the closed position, it depresses a switch and turns off the flash, as recited in claim 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to add the switch and associated circuit arrangement of Chen to the movable cover of the modified Jarausch-Sorrentino lighting apparatus, such that when the cover is positioned downstream the light source, the cover contacts/depresses the switch and causes the circuit to keep or switch the light source to the off-mode, to provide a simple mechanical interlock tied to the light covering position of the cover, and improve safety by electrically disabling the UV source and reduce reliance on software control or sensor detection alone.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch in view of Research Protocol, “Explorative investigation towards the effectivity of a special lighting solution in influencing 25(OH)D serum levels”, Vitamin D3 pilot (2020) [hereinafter Protocol].
Regarding Claim 5:
Jarausch teaches the light generating system of claim 1. However, Jarausch does not specially note that wherein the light source, at maximum power, is configured to provide the UV radiation with a maximum radiant exposure Ea,max within a predetermined range, wherein the maximum radiant exposure Ea,max is selected from the range of up to 30 mWa/m2, and wherein the predetermined range is selected from the range of up to 100 cm.
Protocol teaches wherein the light source, at maximum power, is configured to provide the UV radiation with a maximum radiant exposure Ea,max within a predetermined range, wherein the maximum radiant exposure Ea,max is selected from the range of up to 30 mWa/m2, and wherein the predetermined range is selected from the range of up to 100 cm (Page 15: “The desk-based luminaire will emit a continuous ultra-low and safe daily artificial UVB irradiance (actinic UV) of less than 6 mW/m2 at 20 cm resulting in a received dose by the office worker sitting at his/her desk of about 0.45 SED ((UVI = 0.06) during office hours... Both the participants and the people living in their home will be advised to respect the indicated minimum application distance (80 cm). This minimum application distance keeps the Actinic UV exposure within Risk Group Exempt limits”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure Jarausch’s UVB light source to operate within the low UVB irradiation range and distance range as taught by the Protocol because both references concern controlled UVB exposure to a human user, and the Protocol specially teaches that such low UVB irradiance can be safely provided in an indoor office environment during normal work, to allow Jarausch’s system to provide vitamin-D related UVB exposure while reducing the risk of overexposure.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch in view of WO2017095246A1 [hereinafter Comin].
Regarding Claim 7:
Jarausch teaches the light generating system of claim 1. However, Jarausch does not specially note that wherein the control system is configured to switch the light source to the off-mode based on detecting the object within a predetermined minimum distance do,min from the light source during a predetermined minimum duration to,min, wherein the predetermined minimum distance do,min is selected from the range of 0-20 cm, and wherein the predetermined minimum duration to,min is at least 0.1 seconds.
Comin teaches that human UVB exposure may be applied at a close control distance at 0.5cm for 300-600 seconds (Claims 1 and 3-4: a “compact UVB light therapy device…contains an enclosed, combined light source…and a detachable spacer (3) covering the light source…the spacer is at least 0.5 cm high…the timer controlling the light source allows for setting the LED illumination period with the accuracy of 0.5 second, preferably for 300 or 600 sec”).
As such, Jarausch in view of Comin teaches that, when an object is detected/exposed within a minimum distance of 0.5 cm (within claimed 0-20 cm range) from the UVB light source, the light source is switched off after at least 300 seconds (within the claimed “at least 0.1seconds range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure Jarausch’s controller to switch the UV light source off when the object remains within a predetermined 0-20 cm for at least 0,1 seconds, as Comin demonstrated that close-distance human UVB exposure with the claimed distance range may be controlled by a timer for duration far exceeding 0.1 seconds, and thus using a short minimum detection duration before shutoff would avoid false shutdown from instantaneous/transient sensor evens while still causing shutoff when close-distance condition persists.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch in view of US20210154342A1 [hereinafter Canfield].
Regarding Claim 11:
Jarausch teaches the light generating system according to claim 1. However, Jarausch does not specially note that an arrangement comprising the light generating system according to claim 1 and a display comprising device, wherein the lighting module is attached to the display comprising device.
Canfield teaches an arrangement comprising a light generating system and a display comprising device, wherein the lighting module is attached to the display comprising device (paras. [0004, 0018]: a disinfection system includes an “ultrasound system …may include a display, a control panel, an ultraviolet (UV) light source coupled to the display, wherein the UV light source may be configured to turn on responsive to a control signal.” “The UV light sources 115 may be located along a perimeter of a screen portion 106 of display 105…the UV light sources 115 may be embedded within and/or behind the screen portion”).
Jarausch teaches an attachable UVB lighting module. Canfield teaches arranging UV light sources on or with a display. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to attach the UVB lighting module of Jarausch to a display as taught in Canfield for obtain the claimed arrangement, because Canfield demonstrates that s display is a suitable support structure for positioning UV light sources in a compact, use-facing arrangement. Such a modification would allow Jarausch’s UVB module to be mounted at a stable, existing support location without requiring a separate stand or support structure, while maintaining the ability to direct controlled UV radiation from the display area.
Regarding Claim 12:
Jarausch in view of Canfield teaches the arrangement according to claim 11. Canfield further teaches wherein the display comprising device is selected from the group of a self-standing monitor, a supported monitor or display, a laptop, and a tablet (para. [0017]: as shown in Fig. 1, “the display 105 may be a flat panel display”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights