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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the first detection unit transmits a detection result to a control unit,” which is understood to be an intended use of the device. See MPEP 2114. To clarify the functionality of the first detection unit, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “wherein the first detection unit is configured to transmit a detection result to a control unit.”
Claim 9, please add the article “an” before “ultraviolet-light-radiating device” in line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a radiating unit configured to irradiate ultraviolet light” in claim 1. The Examiner notes that the recitation of “a radiating unit configured to irradiate ultraviolet light” in claim 6 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since there is sufficient structure recited to perform the recited function.
“a first detection unit configured to detect a dielectric strength of air in an atmosphere in which the ultraviolet-light-radiating device is disposed” in claim 1;
“an air pressure measurement unit configured to measure an air pressure of the atmosphere” in claim 1;
“setting unit configured to set the threshold value of the dielectric strength” in claim 3;
“a second detection unit configured to detect a human presence” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examiner interprets the corresponding structure to be:
“radiating unit”: an excimer lamp [0010] and equivalents thereof.
“first detection unit”: a comparator that converts a voltage value from an air pressure measurement unit to generate a logical value correlated with a dielectric strength of ambient air [0066-0067] and equivalents thereof.
“air pressure measurement unit”: air pressure sensor [0029-0030] and equivalents thereof.
“setting unit”: rotary switch, a numerical key, [0032-0033], and equivalents thereof.
“a second detection unit”: presence sensor [0073] and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4 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 4 recites “an air pressure measurement unit configured to measure an air pressure of the atmosphere in which the ultraviolet-light-radiating device is disposed, wherein the first detection unit is configured to detect the dielectric strength of air based on the air pressure measured by the air pressure measurement unit.” It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to further limit claim 1 because claim 1 recites the same limitations in lines 7-10, and claim 4 fails to use the articles such as “the” or “said” before the recitation of “an air pressure measurement unit.” It appears Applicant amended claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 4 and did not cancel claim 4. This is supported by Figure 3 of the Drawings submitted 1/17/2025, which only show a singular air pressure measurement unit (1300). Clarification is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curtis (US 20220184433 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Curtis teaches an ultraviolet-light-radiating device (Fig. 4, system 400, [0075]) comprising:
a radiating unit (Fig. 4, 302) configured to irradiate ultraviolet light (Fig. 4, 302),
a first detection unit (Fig. 2, control system 202 includes a comparator [0063], understood to be a first detection unit) configured to detect a dielectric strength of air in an atmosphere in which the ultraviolet-light-radiating device is disposed.
Curtis teaches wherein the comparator is connected directly to a pressure sensor 210 which continuously measures pressure of an atmosphere and compares the values to a threshold pressure, which triggers a control response [0063-0064, 0069-0070]. Thus, the comparator of Curtis effectively functions the same as the first detection unit as claimed, which the Applicant describes as a comparator which receives a pressure measurement from an air pressure measurement unit and compares the value to a threshold to determine a dielectric strength of air in the Specification [0066-0067]. Because air pressure is directly proportional to the dielectric strength of air, as noted by the Applicant in [0023], the comparator of Curtis is understood to read on a first detection unit that is functionally capable of detecting a dielectric strength of air.
Curtis further teaches:
a control unit configured to control the radiating unit based on the dielectric strength of air detected by the first detection unit (Fig. 4, control electronics 212 understood to be a control unit which can control UV purification system 302 based on measurements from a pressure sensor and signals from a comparator [first detection unit] which detects if a threshold pressure value is met [0063-0070], [0075-0076]. Because air pressure is directly proportional to the dielectric strength of air, as noted by the Applicant in [0023], the control electronics 212 is understood to be controlling the radiating unit based on dielectric strength of air detected by the first detection unit), and
an air pressure measurement unit configured to measure an air pressure of the atmosphere in which the ultraviolet-light-radiating device is disposed (Fig. 4, pressure sensor 210).
The Examiner also notes that the limitation of “wherein the first detection unit is configured to detect the dielectric strength of air based on the air pressure measured by the air pressure measurement unit” is a functional recitation. A comparator functionally capable of receiving an electrical signal relaying an air pressure measurement would be understood to meet the limitation as claimed, because air pressure is directly proportional to the dielectric strength of air as noted by the Applicant’s disclosure [0023].Therefore, the first detection unit as taught by Curtis (Fig. 2, control system 202 includes a comparator [0063]) is understood to meet the limitation as recited because it is connected directly to a pressure sensor 210 which continuously measures pressure of an atmosphere and compares the values to a threshold pressure and triggers a control response [0063-0064, 0069-0070].
Regarding claim 2, Curtis teaches the ultraviolet-light-radiating device according to claim 1, wherein the first detection unit transmits a detection result to the control unit in a state where the dielectric strength of air being detected is smaller than a threshold value, and wherein the control unit stops irradiation of ultraviolet light based on the detection result being received (comparator is functionally capable of using data received from the pressure sensor to detect if an air pressure value [understood to be correlated with a dielectric strength of air] is below a threshold value [0063-0067] and can dynamically adjust ultraviolet light irradiate based on the detection result [0075-0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Curtis teaches the ultraviolet-light-radiating device according to claim 2, further comprising a setting unit configured to set the threshold value of the dielectric strength of air to an arbitrary value (air pressure threshold value [which is correlated to may be set using a user interface [0069-0070]).
Regarding claim 4, Curtis teaches the ultraviolet-light-radiating device according to claim 1, further comprising an air pressure measurement unit configured to measure an air pressure of the atmosphere in which the ultraviolet-light-radiating device is disposed (Fig. 4, pressure sensor 210), wherein the first detection unit is configured to detect the dielectric strength of air based on the air pressure measured by the air pressure measurement unit (Fig. 4, pressure control system 202 includes a pressure sensor 210 [0075] configured detect a pressure of an air and a comparator configured to communicate with the sensor to detect if a pressure exceeds a threshold = understood to be functionally capable of detecting a dielectric strength of air [0063-0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Curtis teaches the ultraviolet-light-radiating device according to claim 2, wherein the first detection unit is configured such that the threshold value is set equal to or smaller than 0.8 atm (first detection unit is configured to detect a threshold value that may be defined by a user [0069-0070] = understood to be functionally capable of being set to equal to or less than 0.8 atm).
Regarding claim 8, The ultraviolet-light-radiating device according to claim 2, wherein the first detection unit is configured such that the threshold value is set to 0.75 atm (first detection unit is configured to detect a threshold value that may be defined by a user [0069-0070] = understood to be functionally capable of being set to equal to 0.75 atm).
Regarding claim 9, Curtis teaches a method for controlling an ultraviolet-light-radiating device, the method comprising:
regarding the ultraviolet-light-radiating device according to claim 1 (Fig. 4, device 400),
detecting a dielectric strength of air in the atmosphere in which the ultraviolet-light-radiating device is disposed (Fig. 4, pressure control system 202 includes a pressure sensor 210 [0075] configured detect a pressure of an air and a comparator configured to communicate with the sensor to detect if a pressure exceeds a threshold = understood to be functionally capable of detecting a dielectric strength of air [0063-0070]); and
controlling irradiation of ultraviolet light based on the dielectric strength of air being detected (Fig. 4, control electronics 212 can control UV purification system 302 based on measurements from pressure sensor and signals from comparator [0063-0070], [0075-0076] = understood to be functionally capable of controlling ultraviolet light based on dielectric strength of air).
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.
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) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis (US 20220184433 A1) in view of Bergenek (US 20220265889 A1) (eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 2/19/2021).
Regarding claim 5, Curtis teaches the ultraviolet-light-radiating device according to claim 1 but does not teach wherein the device further comprises a second detection unit configured to detect a human presence.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with exposing a user to ultraviolet radiation during maintenance on the disinfection light source (Fig. 4, 302), motivating one to Bergenek. Bergenek teaches a lighting device for disinfecting air comprising presence sensors for determining the presence of a human and switching off a UV light source via control circuitry when said presence is detected [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultraviolet-light-radiating device as taught by Curtis with the presence sensors as taught by Bergenek because Beregenek teaches the presence sensors to switch off a UV light source when the presence of a human is detected [0043]. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 6, Curtis teaches the ultraviolet-light-radiating device according to claim 1, wherein the radiating unit comprises light emitting diodes configured to emit ultraviolet light at a wavelength between 190-225 nm ([0011], [0074]) but does not teach wherein the radiating unit includes a first electrode disposed in contact with an outer surface of a luminous tube, and a second electrode disposed in contact with an outer surface of the luminous tube at a position separated in a direction parallel to a tube axis from the first electrode.
One having ordinary skill in the art would contemplate multiple different ultraviolet lighting types that would be suitable for air sterilizing operation, motivating one to turn towards Bergenek. Bergenek teaches a lighting device for sterilizing air that utilizes ultraviolet radiation wherein the lighting device that may be low-pressure discharge lamp [0008], which is well known in the art to comprise of a first electrode disposed in contact with an outer surface of a luminous tube, and a second electrode disposed in contact with an outer surface of the luminous tube at a position separated in a direction parallel to a tube axis from the first electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ultraviolet LED as taught by Curtis with the ultraviolet low-pressure discharge lamp as taught by Bergenek because they are both configured to emit UVC radiation and this involves the substitution of elements (the LED of Curtis and the low-pressure discharge lamp of Bergenek) for the same purpose (sterilizing air) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights