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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the light source" in line 12. Claim 1 has previously recited, “the at least one LED light source”. It is unclear if “the light source” in line 12 is the same light source as “the at least one LED light source”, or an entirely different light source. Thus, said limitation is unclear. Appropriate action is required. Claims 2-15 are rejected merely due to their dependency from claim 1 in this regard.
Claim 3 is also rejected because said claim denotes the limitation of “0.9*WR≤=WB≤=WR”. However, the terms of “WR” and “WB” have not been previously defined, as “WR” and “WB” have been cancelled in claim 3 and preceding claim 1. Thus, said claim is unclear. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the holding component" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-5, 8-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (U.S. Patent No. 4,855,884) in view of Gross et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,265,428).
Richardson (U.S. Patent No. 4,855,884) discloses a lighting system (Figures 1 & 2), the lighting system comprising:
A housing (Figure 1) comprising an intrinsic back wall and a circumferential wall (12) extending from the back wall and forming a cavity of the housing (column 3, lines 25-36);
At least one light source (16) configured to, in operation, emit light source light (column 3, lines 37-41);
A reflector (18) having a reflector width in an elongation direction, the reflector (18) being arranged between the back wall and the at least one light source such as to reflect the light source light as collimated light (Figure 2A) in a main issue direction generally away from the back wall (Figures 1 & 2A);
Wherein the reflector (18) is an elastically deformable reflective sheet (column 4, lines 21-45; column 5, lines 30-60); and
Wherein the lighting system further comprises a bridge component (24) having a bridge width in the elongation direction perpendicular to the main issue direction (Figure 2A);
Wherein the light source (16), the reflector (18), and the bridge component (24) are arranged in the cavity of the housing (Figures 1 & 2);
Wherein the bridge component (24) is arranged between the reflector (18) and the at least one light source (16) in such a way that the reflector is forced to assume a curved shape around the bridge component (24) as shown in Figures 2 & 2A, said curved shape comprising a parabolic cross section in a plane perpendicular to the elongation direction (column 4, lines 21-45; column 5, lines 30-60), wherein a maximum level of stress imposed on the elastically deformable reflective sheet (16) is falling within the elastic regime of the material of the elastically deformable reflective sheet (column 4, line 21 to column 5, line 61).
Richardson does not appear to disclose that the light source is an LED light source. Gross discloses a lighting system (Abstract) that includes a housing (120) with a back wall and a circumferential wall forming a cavity (column 4, lines 30-45; Figures 1, 5 & 6), a light source (126) located within the housing (Figures 1, 5 & 6), a reflector (124) located within said housing as well (column 4, lines 30-45; Figures 1, 5 & 6), and a bridge component (128) between said reflector (124) and said light source (126) as shown in Figure 3 (column 4, lines 30-45). The reference continues to disclose that the light source is an LED light source because LED light sources can successfully produce the appropriate amount of light while simultaneously reducing power consumption (column 3, lines 37-40; column 5, lines 18-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an LED light source as the light source in Richardson in order to successfully produce the appropriate amount of light while simultaneously reducing power consumption as exemplified by Gross.
Thus, claim 1 is not patentable over Richardson in view of Gross.
Concerning claim 2, Richardson continues to disclose that the reflector (18) has a focal line in the elongation direction and wherein the light source (16) is extending along the elongation direction on the focal line of the reflector (16) as shown in Figure 2A.
Regarding claim 3, Richardson continues to disclose that reflector (18) is bend around the bridge component (24) over the full bridge width of the bridge component (24), wherein said reference meets the limitations of the equation 0.9*WR <= WB <= WR, in which WB and WR are undefined arbitrary components (Figure 2A).
With respect to claim 4, Richardson also discloses that the light system is configured to shine light in an upper part of a space or room, such as a part of a space or room near a ceiling of the space or room (Figure 1). However, Richardson does not appear to disclose that the light source is configured to emit UV light source light to disinfect air in said upper part of said space or room. Nonetheless, Gross continues to disclose that its lighting system and LED light source is configured to emit UV light source light to disinfect air in said upper part of said space or room in order to provide a lighting system that can purify air from harmful bacteria and viruses in a room (column 1, lines 15-68). As such, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a light source in Richardson that is configured to emit UV light source light to disinfect air in said upper part of said space or room in order to provide a lighting system that can purify air from harmful bacteria and viruses in a room as exemplified by Gross.
Concerning claim 5, Richardson further discloses that the circumferential wall (12) comprises an upper wall, a lower wall extending in parallel with the upper wall and two mutually parallel side walls extending between the upper wall and the lower wall, and wherein the curved shape into which the elastically deformable reflective sheet (18) is bent follows a curve extending between the upper wall and the lower wall as shown in Figures 1 & 2A.
Regarding claim 8, Richardson continues to disclose that the width of the reflector (18) is larger than the width of the bridge component (24), the width of the reflector (18) and the width of the bridge component (24) being measured, in the assembled condition of the lighting system, in a direction between and perpendicular to mutually opposite parts of the circumferential wall of the housing (Figure 2A).
With respect to claims 9 & 10, Richardson also discloses that the reflector is made from metal comprising aluminum having a thickness of 0.5 mm or less (column 4, lines 27-40).
Concerning claim 11, Richardson continues to disclose that the housing comprises a surface (20) arranged and configured to support the reflector (18) in the assembled condition of the lighting system (column 3, line 37 to column 4, line 27). The reference does not appear to disclose that the surface is parabolic however. Nonetheless, in In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Accordingly, the claimed shape of the of the surface being parabolic is not considered to be a patentable distinction over the reference of Richardson (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)[B]).
As such, claim 11 is not patentable over Richardson as well.
Regarding claims 14 & 15, Richardson modified by Gross further discloses a heat sink element (20) on which the light source (16) is arranged (column 3, line 37 to column 4, line 28), wherein the lighting system further comprises an optical area (i.e., area within reflector 18) in which interaction between UV light and components of the lighting system occurs (Figure 2A), and wherein an outer edge the heat sink element (20) is arranged outside of the optical area as shown in Figure 2A.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (U.S. Patent No. 4,855,884) in view of Gross et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,265,428) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leighley et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2001/0042842).
Richardson is relied upon as set forth above. Richardson does not appear to disclose that one or more of a holding component and the side walls of the housing are made of a UV light absorbing material. Leighley discloses a light system that includes a light a housing (90) and a holding component (20) as shown in Figures 2 & 5 (Abstract). The reference continues to disclose that one or more of the holding component (20) and the side walls of the housing (90) are made of a UV light absorbing material in order to properly direct said light only in the desired direction (paragraph 29). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make one or more of a holding component and the side walls of the housing of Richardson from a UV light absorbing material in order to properly direct said light only in the desired direction as exemplified by Leighley.
Thus, claim 12 is not patentable over Richardson in view of Gross and Leighley.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (U.S. Patent No. 4,855,884) in view of Gross et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,265,428) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Drews (U.S. Patent No. 3,803,401).
Richardson is relied upon as set forth above. Richardson does not appear to disclose that the housing comprises at least one first ventilation opening provided at a first position in the circumferential side wall, and at least one second ventilation opening provided at a second position in the circumferential side wall, the second position being above the first position in a mounted condition of the lighting system such as to enable an air flow between the at least one first ventilation opening and the at least one second ventilation opening. Drews discloses a lighting system that includes a housing that includes a back wall (7) and a circumferential wall (8/9) extending from the back wall to form a cavity of the housing, wherein the system further includes a light source (5), reflector, and bridge component (4) located within the cavity of the housing (Abstract; Figures 1-5). The reference continues to disclose that the housing comprises at least one first ventilation opening (13) provided at a first position in the circumferential side wall, and at least one second ventilation opening (13) provided at a second position in the circumferential side wall (column 4, lines 50-65), the second position being above the first position in a mounted condition of the lighting system such as to enable an air flow between the at least one first ventilation opening and the at least one second ventilation opening (Figures 2 & 3). Drews discloses that said openings are provided in order to aid in keeping dust and debris from building on the light source (column 4, lines 65-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the housing of Richardson with at least one first ventilation opening provided at a first position in the circumferential side wall, and at least one second ventilation opening provided at a second position in the circumferential side wall, the second position being above the first position in a mounted condition of the lighting system such as to enable an air flow between the at least one first ventilation opening and the at least one second ventilation opening because said openings aid in keeping dust and debris from building on the light source as exemplified by Drews.
As such, claim 13 is not patentable over Richardson in view of Gross and Drews.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights