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
With regards to the 112b rejection reciting “Claim 12 recites “a ratio R between the first UV-B solid state light source output intensity and the second UV-B solid state light source output intensity”” the rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
To start, for clarity, Examiner notes that Kaas first and second UV-B are reversed to the terminology in the claims. Kaas’ “second UV-B” are the lower wavelength UV-B/Claimed first UV-B; while Kaas’ “first UV-B” are the higher wavelength UV-B/claimed second UV-B. Additionally, Examiner notes that the UV-B spectrum is a range of wavelengths (Applicants have recited as 280-320 nm in [0002] using PG Pub for paragraph numbers) and both the Kaas’ first and second UV-B and Applicants above 300nm and below 300nm are limited by the UV-B range itself.
Applicants first argument, based on the emphasis in the quotes with bolding and underlining in their statement “Applicant submits Kaas fails to disclose . . .”; arguing that Kaas does not disclose a first UV-B wavelength below 300nm and a second UV-B wavelength above 300nm. To the extent Applicants is arguing that the two wavelengths aren’t disclosed Examiner disagrees. For example, [0042] recites a light emitting unit with at least one first and at least one second distinct UV-B lights on opposite sides of the UV-B spectrum. Kaas [0019] also recites “In particular it has been found advantageous to combine two UV-B wavelengths separated by 10-20 nm and selected from of each part of the UV-B spectrum, i.e., a low wavelength UV-B LED close to the UV-C spectral range and a higher UV-B LED closer to the UV-A spectral range”. As such this argument is not persuasive.
To the extent Applicants next discussion is arguing that Kaas does not disclose “controlling output intensities” or setting different ratios this is not persuasive. Applicants recite their device can be controlled, Kaas similarity recites a controller controlling their device to set the intensities etc., for one nonexclusive example [0098] including “the control system may be adapted for controlling each LED separately, e.g., in terms of power adjustment to adjust the intensity of emitted light and in terms of light exposure time per minute, hour, day, week, month, year, etc.”. Controlling the intensity of each LED separately includes Kaas disclosing setting the LED’s of first and second UV-B LEDs separately thus providing different ratios. An example of different ratios is the discussion of ramping intensity of UV LED, for example if you ramp up the intensity of first UV-B LED(s) while the second UV-B LED(s) remains at a set intensity it changes the ratio of the intensity between them providing multiple different ratios. For one example of the ratios can be found in [0054] which discusses two different modes; a first one in which the light emitting unit has a ratio of 4/8 (Kaas’ second UV-B intensity/ Kaas’ first UV-B intensity) and second a one in which the light emitting unit has a ratio of 10/2.
Examiner notes that for purposes of compact prosecution an alternative rejection was included disclosing Kaas as a single reference 103 rejection pointing to MPEP 2144.05. In response argument, “In a specific embodiment . . .”, Applicants appear to be arguing criticality of the claimed ratios. In response to this, the particular ranges of wavelengths within the UV-B spectrum and particular ratios of intensity between different UV-B wavelengths appear to lack criticality. Based on MPEP 2144.05 discussion of criticality, we turn to 706.02(d) discusses demonstrating criticality of a claimed range by establishing unexpected results of a claim range. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.". Kaas, the prior art, recognizes and discloses the benefits of sterilization, vitamin D production, safety etc. of using UV-B are recognized (Examiner notes applicants [0004] states “Sterilizing properties of UV light are also well known. It is well known that UV light can be used for disinfection i.e. inactivating/killing of viruses and/or bacteria.”). Therefore, Applicants arguments that those benefits are unexpected results is not persuasive. Additionally, these benefits of the particular ranges of wavelengths within the UV-B spectrum and particular ratios of intensity between different UV-B wavelengths are not tied to claimed wave ranges or ratios of intensity. Based on the prior art in view of the lack of criticality it further supports the in the alternative 103 rejection in view of Kaas.
To the extent Applicants discussion of their specification is an attempt to read elements into the claims this is not persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants’ remaining arguments rely on the arguments discussed above and are not persuasive for the same reasons.
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 17 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 17 recites “17. (New) The method claim 1, wherein the lighting system further comprises a sensor,”, the claim recites “the method” but is claims dependency from claim 1 which is a system/apparatus which causes a lack of clarity. The claim is either meant to depend from claim 1 in which case the preamble should be amended to recite something like “The livestock farming lighting system of claim 1”; or the recitation of dependency should be changed to one of the method claims. For purposes of examination Examiner is interpreting the claim to be a method claim depending from claim 15. For the above reasons the claim does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim, and the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US 20240285965 to Kaas (hereinafter Kaas) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaas.
Regarding Claim 1, an interpretation of Kaas discloses livestock farming UV-B lighting system ([0002]-[0003], [0020]) comprising:
a first UV-B solid-state light source emitting, in operation, first UV-B light with a first dominant peak wavelength below 300nm ([0019] including “In particular it has been found advantageous to combine two UV-B wavelengths separated by 10-20 nm and selected from of each part of the UV-B spectrum, i.e., a low wavelength UV-B LED close to the UV-C spectral range and a higher UV-B LED closer to the UV-A spectral range, e.g., 275-285”, [0042] including “the light emitting unit comprises at least a second UV-B LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-B light having a maximum intensity between 275 nm-290 nm”, [0077], [0090]; Examiner notes that UV-B spectral range as defined by applicant has a range of 280-320nm, or 40 nm in range. In searching for the prior art there appears to be some disagreement on the exact definition of the UVB range, but generally the UVB range is about 280/290-315/320 nm);
a second UV-B solid-state light source emitting, in operation, second UV-B light with a second dominant peak wavelength above 300nm, wherein the dominant peak wavelengths differ by at least 10nm ([0019] including “In particular it has been found advantageous to combine two UV-B wavelengths separated by 10-20 nm and selected from of each part of the UV-B spectrum, i.e., a low wavelength UV-B LED close to the UV-C spectral range and a higher UV-B LED closer to the UV-A spectral range, e.g., . . . in combination with 292-302 nm”, [0042], [0077], [0090]; Examiner notes that UV-B spectral range as defined by applicant has a range of 280-320nm, or 40 nm in range. In searching the prior art there appears to be some disagreement on the exact definition of the UVB range, but generally the UVB range is about 280/290-315/320 nm); and
a controller for individually controlling the output intensities delivered by the first and second UV-B solid-state light sources ([0018], [0098] including “the control system may be adapted for controlling each LED separately, e.g., in terms of power adjustment to adjust the intensity of emitted light and in terms of light exposure time per minute, hour, day, week, month, year, etc.”, [0108]-[0109] including “The presently disclosed light emitting unit and/or system may further be configured such that it can be controlled, e.g. remotely, such as from a smartphone”), wherein the controller is operable in:
a first mode to generate a first light output with a first ratio, R1, of a first UV-B solid-state light source output intensity to a second UV-B solid-state light source output intensity ([0054], [0098], [0108]-[0109], [0127], [0153]-[0155] including “configured to control a ratio of light emittance between the at least second UV-B LED and the at least first UV-B LED.” See also [0107]; discloses controlling ratio between of the first and second UV-B light, it also recites a mode where the first UVB is higher than the second and the reverse depending); and
a second mode to generate a second light output with a second ratio, R2, of the first UV-B solid-state light source output intensity to the second UV-B solid- state light source output intensity, wherein R1>R2 ([0054], [0098], [0108]-[0109], [0127], [0153]-[0155] including “configured to control a ratio of light emittance between the at least second UV-B LED and the at least first UV-B LED.”; discloses controlling ratio between of the first and second UV-B light, it also recites a mode where the first UVB is higher than the second and the reverse depending).
In the alternative, the “a first UV-B solid-state light source emitting” and “a second UV-B solid-state light source emitting” elements are rendered obvious in view of the disclosed ranges and values from Kaas see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, an interpretation of Kaas further discloses wherein the first ratio, R1, is greater than 1 and the second ratio, R2, is less than 1 ([0054], [0098], [0108]-[0109], [0127], [0153]-[0155]; discloses controlling ratio between of the first and second UV-B light, it also recites a mode where the first UVB is higher than the second and the reverse depending).
Regarding Claim 3, an interpretation of Kaas discloses adjusting the ratios as desired by adjusting the intensity of the respective LED’s ([0054], [0098], [0108]-[0109], [0127], [0153]-[0155]). An interpretation of Kaas may not explicitly recite wherein: the first light output has no second UV-B solid-state light source output; and/or the second light output has no first UV-B solid-state light source output.
However, in the same field of endeavor (controlling lighting systems), Kaas teaches controlling the LEDs individually and turning off a subset of the array corresponding to a particular wavelength in a particular mode ([0054], [0098], [0106], [0108]-[0109], [0127]) in particular reciting that [0054] “the absolute energy/intensity and the relative energy/intensity of the wavelength are also important, and in the preferred embodiment of the presently disclosed light emitting unit, this can be varied.” (discussing the ratio between the first and second first and second solid state emitting sources).
Applicants’ specification discloses the appropriate ranges that apply to the claimed invention on paragraphs [0021]-[0024] (See Pg Pub). However, the specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed range(s) of having one of the UVB off (i.e. an infinite or undefined ratio respectively) is for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from the other ranges disclosed. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability to the claimed range(s).
In addition to a lack of disclosed criticality in the specification, an obviousness rejection based upon optimization must rely on prior art that discloses the optimized parameter is a result-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05.
Since Kass reference teaches that the ratio can be optimized depending on the desired result, the prior art therefore provides teaching that the ratio (including having one of the UVB off, i.e. an infinite or undefined ratio respectively) is a variable that achieves a recognized result, and satisfies the above requirement of a result-effective variable in order to set forth an obviousness rejection based on optimization.
Because Applicants fail to disclose that the claimed range(s) of having one of the UVB off (i.e. an infinite or undefined ratio respectively) provides a criticality to the invention that separates it from the other ranges in the specification, and the prior art discloses that the ratio (and recites it can be optimized for outcome) absent unexpected results, it would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum ratio by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, an interpretation of Kaas further discloses wherein the first and second light outputs each have components from both the first and second UV-B solid state light sources, in different proportions ([0054], [0098], [0109], [0127], [0153]-[0155]; discloses controlling ratio between of the first and second UV-B light, it also recites a mode where the first UVB is higher than the second and the reverse depending).
Regarding Claim 5, an interpretation of Kaas further discloses wherein a total intensity from the first and second solid state UV-B light sources is lower in the first mode than in the second mode ([0054], [0098], [0108]-[0109], [0153]-[0155] see also [0127]; discloses controlling ratio between of the first and second UV-B light, it also recites a mode where the first UVB is higher than the second and the reverse depending).
Regarding Claim 6, an interpretation of Kaas further discloses wherein the first dominant peak wavelength is below 290nm ([0019] including “In particular it has been found advantageous to combine two UV-B wavelengths separated by 10-20 nm and selected from of each part of the UV-B spectrum, i.e., a low wavelength UV-B LED close to the UV-C spectral range and a higher UV-B LED closer to the UV-A spectral range. . . e.g., 275-285”, [0042] including “the light emitting unit comprises at least a second UV-B LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-B light having a maximum intensity between 275 nm-290 nm”, [0077], [0090]).
Regarding Claim 7, an interpretation of Kaas further discloses further comprising a white solid-state light source emitting, in operation, white light ([0013] including “also in the visible light range”, [0076]-[0077] including “4500 K visible working light”, [0081] including “As also stated above LEDs for providing white light/visible light”, [0127]), wherein the controller is further configured for controlling the output intensity delivered by the white solid-state light source ([0018], [0098] including “the control system may be adapted for controlling each LED separately, e.g., in terms of power adjustment to adjust the intensity of emitted light and in terms of light exposure time per minute, hour, day, week, month, year, etc.”, [0108] including “The presently disclosed light emitting unit and/or system may further be configured such that it can be controlled, e.g. remotely, such as from a smartphone”).
Regarding Claim 8, an interpretation of Kaas further discloses the first and second light outputs in the rejection of claim 1.
An interpretation of Kaas may not explicitly disclose wherein the first light output with the first ratio has no white light and the second light output with the second ratio has white light. However, Kaas does discloses controlling the individual LED’s including the white light including having a mode where white light is off while the UVB is on and white light on with UVB ([0054], [0098], [0106], [0108]-[0109], [0127]) and providing white light only during the day so as not to disturb the animals while they are sleeping ([0106] including “light emitting unit and/or system is configured such that visible light is emitted for a limited and predefined period per day”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the elements recited by Kaas specifically combining the white light into second light output modes allows for the multiuse of the light for providing multiple functions ([0012]-[0013], [0069]) but not the first light output is advantageous because it renders the second light output useful at night when providing the white light may disturb the animals ([0106]).
Regarding Claim 15, an interpretation of Kaas discloses a method of controlling a livestock farming UV-B lighting system ([0002]-[0003], [0020]), the lighting system comprising a first UV-B solid state light source emitting, in operation, a first dominant peak wavelength below 300nm ([0019] including “In particular it has been found advantageous to combine two UV-B wavelengths separated by 10-20 nm and selected from of each part of the UV-B spectrum, i.e., a low wavelength UV-B LED close to the UV-C spectral range and a higher UV-B LED closer to the UV-A spectral range, e.g., 275-285”, [0042] including “the light emitting unit comprises at least a second UV-B LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-B light having a maximum intensity between 275 nm-290 nm”, [0077], [0090]; Examiner notes that UV-B spectral range as defined by applicant has a range of 280-320nm, or 40 nm in range. In searching the prior art there appears to be some disagreement on the exact definition of the UVB range, but generally the UVB range is about 280/290-315/320 nm) and a second solid state UV- B light source emitting, in operation, a second dominant peak wavelength above 300nm , wherein the dominant peak wavelengths differ by at least 10nm ([0019] including “In particular it has been found advantageous to combine two UV-B wavelengths separated by 10-20 nm and selected from of each part of the UV-B spectrum, i.e., a low wavelength UV-B LED close to the UV-C spectral range and a higher UV-B LED closer to the UV-A spectral range, e.g., . . . in combination with 292-302 nm”, [0042], [0077], [0090]; Examiner notes that UV-B spectral range as defined by applicant has a range of 280-320nm, or 40 nm in range. In searching for the prior art there appears to be some disagreement on the exact definition of the UVB range, but generally the UVB range is about 280/290-315/320 nm), wherein the method comprises:
Individually controlling the output intensities delivered by the first and second solid state UV-B light sources ([0018], [0098] including “the control system may be adapted for controlling each LED separately, e.g., in terms of power adjustment to adjust the intensity of emitted light and in terms of light exposure time per minute, hour, day, week, month, year, etc.”, [0108]-[0109] including “The presently disclosed light emitting unit and/or system may further be configured such that it can be controlled, e.g. remotely, such as from a smartphone”) such that:
at a first time a first light output is generated with a first ratio, R1, of the first UV-B solid state light source output intensity to the second UV-B solid state light source output intensity ([0054], [0098], [0108]-[0109], [0127], [0153]-[0155] including “configured to control a ratio of light emittance between the at least second UV-B LED and the at least first UV-B LED.” See also [0107]; discloses controlling ratio between of the first and second UV-B light, it also recites a mode where the first UVB is higher than the second and the reverse depending); and
at a second time a second light output is generated with a second ratio, R2, of the first UV-B solid state light source output intensity to the second UV-B solid state light source output intensity, wherein R1>R2 ([0054], [0098], [0107]-[0109], [0127], [0153]-[0155] including “configured to control a ratio of light emittance between the at least second UV-B LED and the at least first UV-B LED.”; discloses controlling ratio between of the first and second UV-B light including based on sensor input etc., it also recites a mode where the first UVB is higher than the second and the reverse depending).
In the alternative, the “a first UV-B solid-state light source emitting” and “a second UV-B solid-state light source emitting” elements are rendered obvious in view of the disclosed ranges and values from Kaas see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 16, an interpretation of Kaas further discloses controlling the output intensities delivered by the first and second solid state UV-B light sources ([0054], [0098], [0108]-[0109], [0127], [0153]-[0155] See also [0107]) such that the first time occurs during a night or resting time of a livestock and the second time occurs during the day of the livestock ([0054], [0106] including “Thereby maximization of the functional light sources can be obtained without disturbing the animals' sleep, e.g. during night.”, [0108]-[0109], [0153]-[0155] See also [0098], [0107]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas in view of US 20100294205 to Kakimi et al. (hereinafter Kakimi).
Regarding Claim 9, an interpretation of Kaas discloses a first mode and second mode (see rejection of claim 1) as well as applying a time sequence for different modes ([0108]-[0109]) according to a time sequence; and a user interface, wherein the control system is configured to be programmable with the time sequence via the user interface ([0108] including “light emitting unit and/or system may further be configured such that it can be controlled, e.g. remotely, such as from a smartphone or another display device, which light sources/wavelength spectra that are active and possibly also the corresponding intensity/power. Possibly the timing of the different light LEDs can be controlled remotely.”).
An interpretation of Kaas may not explicitly disclose a timer configured to operate the controller between lighting modes.
However, in the same field of endeavor (therapy lighting system), Kakimi teaches a timer associated with a controller configured to change lighting modes ([0062], [0111] including “The timer controller controls time period and illuminance of light emitted by the lighting facilities.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting system with different modes as disclosed by Kaas to include switching modes based on a timer as disclosed by Kakimi because it merely combining the respective prior art elements of Kaas and Kakimi according to known methods to yield predictable results of modes being switched based on a timer.
Regarding Claim 11, an interpretation of Kaas discloses controlling the output intensities delivered by the first and second solid state UV-B light sources ([0054], [0098], [0108]-[0109], [0127], [0153]-[0155] See also [0107]) and further discloses wherein the time sequence provides the first light output during the night and the second light output during the day ([0054], [0106] including “Thereby maximization of the functional light sources can be obtained without disturbing the animals' sleep, e.g. during night.”, [0108]-[0109], [0153]-[0155] See also [0098], [0107]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kaas or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaas in view of US 20160089548 to Kaas (hereinafter Kaa).
Regarding Claim 14, an interpretation of Kaas discloses livestock farming UV-B lighting system ([0002]-[0003], [0020]) wherein the livestock farming lighting system is a poultry farming lighting system (this is an intended use of the structure to specifically provide the lighting system for poultry).
If it is determined that this is more than an intended use and in view of compact prosecution goals, then in the alternative. An interpretation of Kaas may not explicitly disclose wherein the livestock farming lighting system is a poultry farming lighting system.
However, in the same field of endeavor (lighting systems), Kaa teaches wherein the livestock farming lighting system is a poultry farming lighting system ([0009] including “in a livestock, such as cattle, pigs, chickens and the like.”, [0024] including “These animals can be birds, such as chickens and/or non-human mammals, such as cows, pigs, goats and/or lambs.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the livestock farming lighting system disclosed by Kaas to be used for poultry is obvious to try as Kaa lays out a number of identified livestock types (see citations above) which light system is a predictable solution for, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas.
Regarding Claim 18, an interpretation of Kaas discloses a second UV-B solid-state light source emitting, in operation, second UV-B light with a second dominant peak wavelength above 300nm ([0019] including “In particular it has been found advantageous to combine two UV-B wavelengths . . . selected from of each part of the UV-B spectrum, i.e., a low wavelength UV-B LED close to the UV-C spectral range and a higher UV-B LED closer to the UV-A spectral range, e.g., . . . in combination with 292-302 nm”, [0042] including “a first UV-B LED configured for emitting monochromatic UV-B light having a maximum intensity between 290 nm-305 nm”, [0077], [0090]; Examiner notes that UV-B spectral range as defined by applicant has a range of 280-320nm, or 40 nm in range. Kaas recites a separation of 10nm and 20nm between first and Second UV-B. In view of this, in one example, you would have Applicants UV-B range (40nm total) and Kaas with a recited 20 nm separation between the first and second UV-B wavelengths).
An interpretation of Kaas may not explicitly disclose wherein the second dominant peak wavelength is above 310nm.
The specification discloses the appropriate ranges that apply to the claimed invention in the abstract and [0027] (using PG Pub for paragraph numbers) as within UV-B range above 300 nm. However, the specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed range(s) of UV-B spectrum above 310nm is for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from the other ranges disclosed. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability to the claimed range(s).
In addition to a lack of disclosed criticality in the specification, an obviousness rejection based upon optimization must rely on prior art that discloses the optimized parameter is a result-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05.
Since Kaas teaches that a higher UV-B LED (including above 300nm) closer to the UV-A spectral range as a second UV-B, the prior art therefore provides teaching that the a higher UV-B wavelength is a variable that achieves a recognized result, and satisfies the above requirement of a result-effective variable in order to set forth an obviousness rejection based on optimization.
Because Applicants fail to disclose that the claimed range(s) of above 310nm provides a criticality to the invention that separates it from the other ranges in the specification, and the prior art discloses the benefits of sterilization, vitamin d production etc. absent unexpected results, it would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable range(s) of high UV-B range above 300nm by normal optimization procedures known in the light therapy arts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are allowable over the prior art. Examiner notes that Claim 17 shares the same claim elements as claim 12 but is currently rejected under 112b as discussed above.
However, claims 12-13 are objected to 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.
Regarding claim 12 none of the prior art reviewed alone or in combination recites the recited steps of detecting presences and determining both distance between the one or more animals and the lighting arrangement; further comprising adjusting a third ratio (between first and second UV-B) as a function of the determined distance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140228916
US 20160106873 see Fig. 5
US 20180015192 (cited in IDS dated 8/22/24) see Fig. 1 and ISR of the WO related to current Application
US 20180077767 to Soler see [0016], [0026]
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 JAMES R MOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:30 am - 5:30 pm).
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. 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.
/James Moss/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights