DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-14 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a light concentrating reflector arranged in the chamber near the outlet” but it is unclear to what degree “near” refers.
Claim 12 recites “the second inner is provided with an air guide surface”. This is read to mean the second inner wall.
Claims 2-14 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 9, 13,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gable et al. (US 20230068382 A1) [hereinafter Gable] in view of Jeong (US 20220211895 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gable teaches an ultraviolet sterilization device, comprising:
a chamber (see e.g. fig 3b: 14);
an inlet (see near 32) in fluid communication with one end of the chamber;
an outlet (see near 34) in fluid communication with the other end of the chamber;
a fan assembly (see 12) arranged at the inlet (see fig 3b), the fan assembly being configured to operate to form an airflow that flows from the inlet into the chamber and then flows out through the outlet (see fig 3b);
a light emitter (see e.g. fig 2a: 204) arranged in the
Gable may fail to explicitly disclose a light concentrating reflector arranged in the chamber near the outlet, the light concentrating reflector having a periphery hindering the airflow from flowing from the chamber to the outlet, and the light concentrating reflector comprising a groove wall forming a reflective cavity confronting a flow direction of the airflow in the chamber; the light emitter arranged in the reflective cavity such that at least part of light emitted by the light emitter is reflected by the groove wall to be parallel to the flow direction of the airflow in the chamber.
However, the use of light concentrating reflectors to improve operation of LEDs was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Jeong teaches a system using two sets of LEDs facing each other at the inlet and outlet sides of a sterilization chamber (see Jeong, e.g. fig 3: 120, 140), which enables the ability to control one or both to turn on based on a level of sterilization desired, and minimize load and heat generation by each set of emitters (see [0049]), said system comprising using concentrating reflectors (see e.g. fig 3: 101, 104, [0055]) to help contribute to the sterilization (see generally, [0089]), said system comprising a light concentrating reflector (see e.g. 104) arranged in the chamber near the outlet, the light concentrating reflector having a periphery hindering the airflow from flowing from the chamber to the outlet (see fig 3), and the light concentrating reflector comprising a groove wall forming a reflective cavity (wall of the reflector) confronting a flow direction of the airflow in the chamber (see figs 3,4); the light emitter (note 120) arranged in the reflective cavity such that at least part of light emitted by the light emitter is reflected by the groove wall to be parallel to the flow direction of the airflow in the chamber (natural result of fixed e.g. 55 degree angle and broad emission of LED, see [0091-92]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Jeong in the system of the prior art, and enable the use of duplicate emitters and reflectors at the inlet and outlet ends, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the improved flexibility to achieve higher intensity levels, and minimize load and heat generation at each emitter, in the manner taught by Jeong.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Gable and Jeong teaches the light emitter comprises a light-emitting semiconductor chip (see e.g. Gable, fig 2b: 205). Note semiconductor UV LED chips are notoriously well known in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Gable and Jeong teaches the light emitter is an ultraviolet LED light strip (see Gable, defining the emitters as e.g. fig 2a: 203, 205, which are in a strip; alternately see fig 5a).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Gable and Jeong teaches the ultraviolet light strip is a UVC-LED light strip (see Gable, e.g. [0040]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gable and Jeong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210316031 A1) [hereinafter Zhang].
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Gable and Jeong teaches the groove wall forming the reflective cavity is provided with a
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Gable, Jeong, and Zhang teaches a heat dissipation fin (e.g. Gable, fig 3b: 28; alternately, Jeong, fig 3: 110) is provided at a side of the light concentrating reflector that is faced away from the reflective cavity (see same).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Gable, Jeong, and Zhang may fail to explicitly disclose the light concentrating reflector is detachably connected to the heat dissipation fin. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to form the heat dissipating heat sink fin a separable part (note use of fasteners, Gable, [0052]), for example to enable easier serviceability. Additionally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 4-7, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gable and Jeong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niemiec et al. (US 20220275150 A1) [hereinafter Niemiec].
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Gable and Jeong teaches the ultraviolet sterilization device has a first inner wall (see Gable, fig 3b: inside 14) forming the chamber and a second inner wall (see e.g. inside of 28, or top side of chamber outside of 16) forming the outlet, the first inner wall being provided with a first reflective layer (see [0058]), portions of Gable, fig 6b) and the second inner wall being provided with a light absorbing layer (material that absorbs UVC, see Niemiec, [0100]).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Gable, Jeong, and Niemiec teaches the inlet and the outlet are arranged at two ends of the chamber respectively (see Gable, e.g. fig 3b, 6b, etc).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Gable, Jeong, and Niemiec teaches an air intake plate (e.g. Gable, fig 3a: 32; alternately fig 6a: 54) with a plurality of air holes is provided at the inlet and an air outlet plate (see 28, alternately 52) with a plurality of air holes is provided at the outlet (see fig 3a, alternately 6a).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Gable, Jeong, and Niemiec teaches the fan assembly (see Gable, reinterpreting as fig 6b: 36) has fan blades with a rotation axis that is parallel to a center line of each of the plurality of air holes of the air intake plate (see vent fig 6a: 54). It is unclear what the air vent hole shapes in this embodiment are, but the use of cutouts in a metal plate were well known in the art (see e.g. fig 3a: 32,28, fig 8b:56).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Gable, Jeong, and Niemiec may fail to explicitly disclose the second inner [wall] is provided with an air guide surface inclined relative to the air outlet plate so as to guide the airflow to flow out through the plurality of air holes of the air outlet plate. However, in a different embodiment, Niemiec teaches a shielding baffle configuration at an angle to the outlet (see e.g. Niemiec, fig. 21: 3007, [0113]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the position of the baffle to effectively block UV light in the teaching of the combined prior art. Alternately, Gable teaches that different bracket angles can be used to direct airflow to different types of downstream components (see Gable, [0057]), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the angle of the outlet plate, for example to sit flush with the surfaces of a given room or device (see Gable, figs 6, 8, etc) and/or interface with different downstream components. Although the embodiment does not recite the same structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gable and Jeong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prystupa et al. (US 20220016300 A1) [hereinafter Prystupa].
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Gable and Jeong may fail to explicitly disclose the fan assembly has fan blades with a fourth reflective layer configured to reflect light from the chamber back into the chamber so as to prevent light leakage. However, Gable teaches the fan blades are made from metal (see Gable, [0057]) and that chamber, framework, and vents (see [0052]) are all made of aluminum which reflects UVC light. Further, the use of UV reflective coatings on fan blades was well known in the art. For example, Prystupa teaches using reflective coatings on fan blades to further enhance the sterilization effect by sending light in different directions (see e.g. Prystupa, [0328,330], fig 9, etc). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Prystupa in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look to improve the sterilization effect by reflecting UV light back into the chamber, rather than just absorbing the light into the blades, and enabling further UV light spread in different directions, in the manner taught by Prystupa.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gable and Jeong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20170194533 A1) [hereinafter Liu].
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Gable and Jeong may fail to explicitly disclose a mounting slot for mounting the light emitter is provided at the bottom of the groove wall forming the reflective cavity and a thermal conductive adhesive is provided for bonding the light emitter with the mounting slot. However, the use of these adhesives and mounting slots was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Liu teaches a known effective UVC LED chip comprising a mounting slot (see e.g. Liu, fig 2, cavity) for mounting the light emitter (see 1, 40) is provided at the bottom of the groove wall (see fig 2, defining groove wall as including 34) forming the reflective cavity and a thermal conductive adhesive (see 56, [0028]) is provided for bonding the light emitter with the mounting slot (see [0028]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Liu in the system of the prior art in order to use of the known effective UVC LED chip packages to enable the intended operation of the system, and/or enabling use of known effective thermally conducive adhesives, in the manner taught by Liu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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 CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights