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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itagaki et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190385029 A1), hereafter Itagaki.
Regarding claim 1, Itagaki teaches an illumination device that illuminates an object (FIG. 2, measurement image 201) containing a fluorescent brightener (paragraph [0003], “an optical brightening agent (OBA)”), the illumination device comprising:
a light emitter that emits white light (The white LED 201) including violet light whose light emission peak wavelength that excites the fluorescent brightener is less than or equal to 405 nm (paragraph [0003], “The OBA acts in accordance with a principle of fluorescence, and thus absorbs radiation of ultraviolet ray (UV) whose wavelength is 400 nanometers (nm) or less and emits light mainly with a region of a blue visible spectrum of 400 to 450 nm. Accordingly”), wherein
a spectral reflectance p(l) (paragraph [0008], “a spectral reflectance”) is expressed by an intensity EA(l)/ an intensity E(l) (FIG. 13, shows the ratio of intensity of reflected light at a wavelength at wavelength 500nm and intensity of emitted light at a wavelength 500nm), where the intensity EA(l)is an intensity of reflected light at a wavelength l (FIG. 13.a wavelength 500 nm) and the intensity E(l) is an intensity of emitted light at a wavelength l the reflected light being reflected off a surface of the object, the emitted light being emitted onto the surface of the object containing the fluorescent brightener (paragraph [0005], “a determination unit configured to determine an optical brightening agent amount contained in the sheet by using a spectral reflectance obtained by performing measurement on the sheet with use of the sensor; and a chromaticity value conversion unit configured to convert the chromaticity value, which is acquired by the acquisition unit, by using the condition designated by the designation unit and information about the optical brightening agent amount determined by the determination unit”), and
a maximum value of the spectral reflectance p(l) at a wavelength l ranging from 460 nm to 500 nm falls between 0.9 and 1.05, both inclusive (TABLE 1 and FIG. 13, shows 460nm to 500nm falls between 90% and 105%).
Regarding claim 2, Itagaki further teaches wherein the intensity EA(l)is a sum of an intensity Ep(l) of emitted light at a wavelength X and an intensity Er(l) of reflected light at a wavelength the emitted light being emitted due to excitation of the fluorescent brightener, the reflected light being reflected off the surface of the object containing the fluorescent brightener (paragraph [0084], “a detection result P (λ) of the line sensor 203 that corresponds to reflected light from a measurement image, a detection result W (λ) of the line sensor 203 that corresponds to reflected light from the white reference plate 240, and an absolute spectral reflectance ARW (λ) of the white reference plate 240 itself are used. The absolute spectral reflectance ARW (λ) indicates a reflectance when that of barium sulfate which is a perfectly diffusing sample is 100%. By using the values, the absolute spectral reflectance ARP (λ) of the measurement image is acquired on the basis of a formula ARP(λ)=P(λ)/W(λ)×ARW(λ)”).”)
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.
Claims 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allen et al. (Pub. No.: US 20160290573 A1), here after Allen.
Regarding claim 4, Itagaki teaches limitation of claim 1, but does no explicitly disclose the light emitter includes: a first light source that emits the violet light; and a second light source that is an individual element different from the first light source, and emits the white light.
Allen teaches the light emitter (FIG. 9A, 900) includes: a first light source that emits the violet light (FIG. 9A); and a second light source that is an individual element different from the first light source, and emits the white light (FIG. 9A, B, paragraph [0115], “an array of one or more light sources configured to produce light that appears substantially white, and one or more UV-violet light sources”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Itagaki in view of Allen to incorporate light sources with different chromaticity or color aspect of light to continuously improve white LED lamps for use in illuminating retail merchandise items such as clothing, and retail merchandise settings, especially with respect to white and brightly colored garments or retail merchandise settings having a mixture of white and colored objects (Allen, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Itagaki as modified above further teaches the first light source includes a light-emitting diode (LED) (Allen, paragraph [0033], “A light source may refer to a solid state light (SSL) emitter, such as an LED chip or LD chip or light emitting transistor (LET) chip, or OLED panel, or other SSL emitter”).
Regarding claim 6, Itagaki as modified above further teaches the first light source includes an LED that emits the violet light (Allen, FIG. 9B LED 924 and paragraph [0116], “a schematic array 920 of light sources comprising at least one UV-violet LED chip 924) , and the second light source includes an LED that emits the white light (Allen, FIG. 9B, 926 and paragraph [0116], “a plurality of LEDs 926 configured to emit white light).
Regarding claim 7, Itagaki as modified above further teaches the second light source includes an LED that emits blue light whose light emission peak wavelength falls between 450 nm and 470 nm (Allen, paragraph [0050], “peak fluorescence emission is in a blue range, or about 420 to 480 nm”), both inclusive, and a phosphor appropriately selected from among a yellow phosphor, a green phosphor, and a red phosphor which are to be excited by the blue light (Allen, FIG. 7A, Itagaki, paragraph [0114]).
Regarding claim 8, Itagaki as modified above further teaches the second light source includes an LED that emits blue light whose light emission peak wavelength falls between 450 nm and 470 nm (Allen, paragraph [0050], “peak fluorescence emission is in a blue range, or about 420 to 480 nm”), both inclusive, and a blue phosphor, a green phosphor, and a red phosphor which are to be excited by the blue light Allen, FIG. 7A, Itagaki, paragraph [0114]).
Regarding claim 9, Itagaki as modified above further teaches the second light source includes a blue LED that emits blue light whose light emission peak wavelength falls between 450 nm and 470 nm Allen, paragraph [0050], “peak fluorescence emission is in a blue range, or about 420 to 480 nm”), both inclusive, a green LED that emits green light whose light emission peak wavelength falls between 500 nm and 550 nm (Allen, FIG. 13C, 1342, FIG. 13D, 1364), both inclusive, and a red LED that emits red light whose light emission peak wavelength falls between 600 nm and 650 nm, both inclusive (Allen, FIG. 13C, 1344, FIG. 13D, 1364) “.
Regarding claim 10, Itagaki as modified above further teaches a controller (FIG. 1, CPU 111) that individually controls the first light source and the second light source in controlling brightening and dimming of light to be emitted by the first light source and the second light source, wherein the controller adjusts, according to a type and an amount of the fluorescent brightener contained in the object (paragraph [0005], “a determination unit configured to determine an optical brightening agent amount contained in the sheet by using a spectral reflectance obtained by performing measurement on the sheet with use of the sensor; and a chromaticity value conversion unit configured to convert the chromaticity value, which is acquired by the acquisition unit, by using the condition designated by the designation unit and information about the optical brightening agent amount determined by the determination unit”), an output ratio between the first light source and the second light source to cause the maximum value of the spectral reflectance p(l) at the wavelength l ranging from 460 nm to 500 nm to fall between 0.9 and 1.05, both inclusive (TABLE 1 and FIG. 13, shows 460nm to 500nm falls between 90% and 105%).
Regarding claim 11, Itagaki as modified above further teaches a measurer that measures the intensity E(l) and the intensity EA(l); and a calculator that calculates the spectral reflectance p(l) (Itagaki , paragraph [0052], “The inline sensor 123 detects light intensity of reflected light for wavelengths ranging from 380 [nm] to 720 [nm] at intervals of 10 [nm]. In this case, n is 34. The calculation unit 204 includes, for example, a spectral calculation unit that calculates a spectral reflectance on the basis of the light intensity value of each of the pixels of the line sensor 203”).
Regarding claim 12, Itagaki as modified above further teaches the controller adjusts, based on the spectral reflectance p(l) calculated by the calculator (Itagaki , paragraph [0052], “The calculation unit 204 includes, for example, a spectral calculation unit that calculates a spectral reflectance on the basis of the light intensity value of each of the pixels of the line sensor 203”), the output ratio between the first light source and the second light source to cause the maximum value of the spectral reflectance p(l) at the wavelength k ranging from 460 nm to 500 nm to fall between 0.9 and 1.05, both inclusive (TABLE 1 and FIG. 13, shows 460nm to 500nm falls between 90% and 105%).
Regarding claim 13, Itagaki as modified above further teaches the controller outputs, based on the spectral reflectance p(k) calculated by the calculator (Itagaki , paragraph [0052], “The calculation unit 204 includes, for example, a spectral calculation unit that calculates a spectral reflectance on the basis of the light intensity value of each of the pixels of the line sensor 203”), information indicating the output ratio between the first light source and the second light source to cause the maximum value of the spectral reflectance p(k) at the wavelength a ranging from 460 nm to 500 nm to fall between 0.9 and 1.05, both inclusive (TABLE 1 and FIG. 13, shows 460nm to 500nm falls between 90% and 105%).
Regarding claim 14, Itagaki as modified above further teaches a correlated color temperature of the white light emitted from the second light source is less than or equal to 3500 K (paragraph [0056], “the CCT of a light source is 2500 K, and 404 along which the CCT of a light source is 3000 K”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest a lighting apparatus comprising “and the following expression is more than or equal to a fixed value: { an integrated value of (the spectral distribution of the violet light out of the white light x an absorption curve of the fluorescent brightener) }/{ an integrated value of (the spectral distribution of the light emitted by the light emitter x the absorption curve of the fluorescent brightener)}”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest a lighting apparatus comprising “ “a ratio k of a radiant flux of the violet light to a total radiant flux is expressed by the following Expression (1), where fp denotes an intensity of the violet light at a wavelength l and fw denotes the intensity of the white light at a wavelength a, the violet light being included in the white light emitted from the light emitter, the white light being emitted from the light emitter: [Math. 1]k
PNG
media_image1.png
38
127
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Expression (1)
PNG
media_image2.png
9
20
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the ratio K of the radiant flux of the violet light to the total radiant flux falls between 0.02 and 0.2, both inclusive”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Differences in Structural Requirements Arising from Distinct Technical Fields
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that, “Itagaki lacks a disclosure of a structural configuration or control capability required to maintain specific spectral characteristics. Therefore, Itagaki does not anticipate the illumination device of Claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Itagaki teaches in paragraph 5, “a determination unit configured to determine an optical brightening agent amount contained in the sheet by using a spectral reflectance obtained by performing measurement on the sheet with use of the sensor; and a chromaticity value conversion unit configured to convert the chromaticity value, which is acquired by the acquisition unit, by using the condition designated by the designation unit and information about the optical brightening agent amount determined by the determination unit”).
2. Itagaki Fails to Disclose a Light Emitter Having the Recited Peak Wavelength
Applicant further argues that, “First, there is a confusion between the "absorption characteristics of a sample" and the "emission characteristics of a light source." The disclosure in paragraph [0003] of Itagaki merely refers to the physical properties of the object to be measured (e.g., a sheet of paper containing OBA) absorbing wavelengths of 400 nm or less. This does not directly disclose that the light source (white LED 201) installed in Itagaki's apparatus itself has an independent "emission peak" in the wavelength range of 405 nm or less. Second, based on the common technical knowledge regarding white LED configurations, the emission peak of a standard white LED, such as the one employed in Itagaki, generally exists in the blue region ranging from 440 nm to 470 nm. Such a general white LED does not substantially include a violet light component of 405 nm or less, especially in a manner that forms an independent peak. There is no specific disclosure or suggestion in Itagaki indicating an intentional adoption of a light source having a specific violet light peak contrary to this technical common sense. Third, there is a lack of structural requirements. A thorough review of the entire disclosure of Itagaki reveals no technical data or structural description indicating that the light emitted. Third, there is a lack of structural requirements. A thorough review of the entire disclosure of Itagaki reveals no technical data or structural description indicating that the light emitted from the light source includes violet light of 405 nm or less, or that its peak wavelength falls within that range”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Itagaki teaches in (paragraph [0003], “The OBA acts in accordance with a principle of fluorescence, and thus absorbs radiation of ultraviolet ray (UV) whose wavelength is 400 nanometers (nm) or less and emits light mainly with a region of a blue visible spectrum of 400 to 450” and (paragraph [0008], “a spectral reflectance”) and FIG. 13, shows the ratio of intensity of reflected light at a wavelength at wavelength 500nm and intensity of emitted light at a wavelength 500nm.
3. The Recited Reflectance Range Represents a Sample Property Rather than a Structural Limitation
Applicant further argues that, “Itagaki confirms that these values vary based on whether the OBA amount is large, small, or none, demonstrating that the reflectance is a property of the sheet of paper and not a fixed attribute of the image processing device. Consequently, an incidental measurement of external sample characteristics fails to establish a structural or functional feature of the apparatus itself”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, As first of all claim language is broad about structural limitation and Itagaki teaches in paragraph 5 -“a determination unit configured to determine an optical brightening agent amount contained in the sheet by using a spectral reflectance obtained by performing measurement on the sheet with use of the sensor; and a chromaticity value conversion unit configured to convert the chromaticity value, which is acquired by the acquisition unit, by using the condition designated by the designation unit and information about the optical brightening agent amount determined by the determination unit”.
4. The Expression of Spectral Reflectance in Claim 1 Is a Structural Parameter
Applicant further argues that,” Itagaki lacks any configuration to control its light emission to achieve the specific criteria defined by the expression in Claim 1, it fails to anticipate the claimed device”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Itagaki disclose all limitation of claim 1. Specific expression/formula is claimed in 3 and 15 and not in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED M KAISER whose telephone number is (571)272-9612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m.-6 p.m..
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/SYED M KAISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831