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 Amendment
The request for reconsideration filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOTTS (US 2021/0402040) in view of Jurik et al. (US 2016/0061439 hereinafter refer as “Jurik”).
Regarding claim 1. BOTTS discloses a luminaire (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0033), comprising: a head having a housing (300, see Fig. 3A, Para. 0036), the head comprising: a light source (first light source 350 and second light source 360, see Fig. 3A, Para. 0045-0046) that generates heat (inherent characteristic); one or more motors (324, see Fig. 3A, Para. 0040) that generate heat (inherent characteristic); one or more lubricated surfaces that, when heated, release airborne contaminants (Para. 0042); one or more painted surfaces (i.e. collimated lens and/or reflection cup may be comprised of silicon oxide (e.g., silica) and/or polymethyl methacrylate (e.g., PMMA), see Para. 0054) that, when heated, release airborne contaminants (e.g., chemicals, such as mercury vapors, Para. 0043); a lens (e.g., cover lens 382 and face 314 may include a collimator lens or a reflection cup associated with one or more emitters 352, 362 to focus the light waves emitted by emitters 352, 362, see Figs. 3A and 3B, Para. 0053 and 0054);
and an adsorptive filter system (340, see Fig. 3B, Para. 0042) configured to reduce airborne contaminants in air contacting the lens by pulling contaminated air through the adsorptive filter system (340) and directing filtered air onto the lens (Fig. 11, Para. 0062-0064).
However, BOTTS is silent with respect to the lens includes a plurality of lenses.
Jurik discloses a luminaire (10, see Fig. 4, Para. 0020), comprising: a head having a housing (16, see Fig. 4, Para. 0020), the head comprising: a light source (LED modules 18, see Fig. 1, Para. 0021) and a plurality of lenses (e.g., lens arrays 42, first and second micro lens arrays 122 and 123, see Figs. 4-6, Para. 0026 and 0028) in order provide homogenization of the light beam as well as altering the beam divergence (see Para. 0028).
Therefore, in view of Jurik, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOTTS’s luminaire by providing additional lenses in order to provide homogenization of the light beam as well as altering the beam divergence as suggested by Jurik. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide an improved luminaire light output.
Regarding claim 2. BOTTS further discloses the adsorptive filter system (340, see Fig. 3B, Para. 0042) is mounted in the luminaire in a position that reduces an amount of contaminated air pulled across the plurality of lenses into the adsorptive filter system (see Fig. 3A, Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 3. BOTTS further discloses the housing is configured to make the head waterproof (e.g. the housing includes a front end 312A, a perimeter wall 312 and back end 312B that provide a waterproofing function, see Fig. 3A, Para.
Regarding claim 5. BOTTS further discloses the adsorptive filter system comprises a fan (322, see Fig. 3B, Para. 0040) configured to pull the contaminated air through the adsorptive filter system (340/342, see Fig. 3B, Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 6. BOTTS further discloses the adsorptive filter system comprises activated charcoal pellets (see Para. 0043).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOTTS in view of Jurik and further in view of Belliveau (US 2003/0117090).
Regarding claim 4. BOTTS further discloses comprising: a user interface (e.g. computer system 400, see Fig. 10, Para. 0077); a control system (390, see Fig. 11, Para. 0072); and a sensor (392, see Para. 0049).
However, BOTTS is silent with respect to the sensor configured to sense a contaminant saturation of the adsorptive filter system and to produce a signal related to an amount of contaminant saturation of the adsorptive filter system, wherein the control system is electrically coupled to the sensor and the user interface and the control system is configured to: compare the signal to a threshold value, and display information relating to a result of the comparison on the user interface.
Belliveau discloses a luminaire (10, see Fig. 2, Para. 0018 and 0023) including a light source (lamp 108, see Fig. 1, Para. 0018) and a senser (170 and 171, see Fig. 1, Para. 0019) to sense a contaminant saturation of the adsorptive filter system and to produce a signal related to an amount of contaminant saturation of the adsorptive filter system(160, see Fig. 1, Para. 0042), wherein the control system is electrically coupled to the sensor and the user interface and the control system is configured to: compare the signal to a threshold value (e.g., difference values between the sensors 170 and 171 may be stored in the memory 315 so that status of the filter 160 can be determined by the processor 316 from the memory 315 and communicated over the communications system, including 442, 436 and 438, upon the next initialization (power up) of the product or by a request command from the central controller 450, see Para. 0056, 0062).
Therefore, in view of Belliveau, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOTTS’s sensor to detect contaminant saturation within the filter system, thereby enabling a more efficient operation as suggested by Belliveau. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to achieve improved filtration control.
Regarding claim 9. BOTTS further discloses comprising: a control system (390, see Fig. 11, Para. 0072); and a sensor (392, see Para. 0049); wherein the sensor is electrically coupled to the control system and the control system is configured to control a speed of the fan based on the signal produced by the sensor (see Para. 0065).
However, BOTTS is silent with respect to the sensor configured to sense airborne contaminants within the housing and to produce a signal related to an amount of airborne contaminants sensed within the housing.
Belliveau discloses the luminaire (10, see Fig. 2, Para. 0018 and 0023) and the senser (170, 171, see Fig. 1, Para. 0019) configured to sense airborne contaminants within the housing and to produce a signal related to an amount of airborne contaminants sensed within the housing (see Para. 0056 and 0062).
Therefore, in view of Belliveau, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOTTS’s sensor to detect contaminant saturation within the filter system, thereby enabling a more efficient operation as suggested by Belliveau. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to achieve improved filtration control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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. The closest prior art, fails to disclose or suggest “the adsorptive filter system comprises a cup-shaped container configured to contain the activated charcoal pellets and having a cylindrical wall, an open first end, and a closed second end; the closed second end comprises a protrusion extending into an interior of the cup-shaped container; the protrusion and the cylindrical wall comprise first openings configured to allow passage of air and prevent passage of the activated charcoal pellets; and the closed second end is configured to couple to the fan, such that air pulled into the fan through the protrusion passes through the activated charcoal pellets after passing through the open first end of the cup-shaped container and the first openings in the cylindrical wall” in the manner required by the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Botts does not disclose “one or more lubricated surfaces that, when heated, release airborne contaminants,” as recited in claim 1, Applicant is respectfully advised that, when considering the disclosure of a prior art reference, it is proper to take into account not only the explicit teachings of the reference but also the inferences that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968). In the present case, Botts teaches that the luminaire includes a motor (e.g., a servomotor or linear motor) and a gear assembly operatively connected to the first set of emitters (352) and the second set of emitters (362) (see Botts, Para. 0059). One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that the moving components of the motor and gear assembly require lubrication for proper operation, as lubrication is routinely used to reduce friction, minimize wear, decrease noise, and prevent premature or catastrophic failure of such mechanical components. Accordingly, the lubricated surfaces of the motor and gear assembly are reasonably inferred to be present in Botts. Furthermore, when such lubricated mechanical components are exposed to elevated operating temperatures, the lubricants inherently release volatile compounds or airborne contaminants through outgassing. Thus, Botts inherently teaches “one or more lubricated surfaces that, when heated, release airborne contaminants,” as recited in the claim.
Applicant is further advised that products of identical or substantially identical structure cannot possess mutually exclusive properties. A structure and its inherent properties are inseparable. Therefore, where the prior art discloses the same or substantially the same structure as that claimed, the claimed property is presumed to be inherently present. When the Office establishes a sound basis for believing that the prior art and the claimed invention are the same or substantially the same, the burden shifts to Applicant to demonstrate that the prior art structure does not inherently possess the claimed property. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP § 2112.01. Here, Botts discloses a luminaire having the same relevant mechanical structure, including a motor and gear assembly with lubricated moving surfaces. Such lubricated surfaces inherently exhibit the claimed characteristic of releasing airborne contaminants when heated. Accordingly, the claimed limitation is taught, at least inherently, by Botts.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Botts does not disclose “one or more painted surfaces that, when heated, release airborne contaminants,” as recited in claim 1, Applicant is respectfully advised that, when considering the disclosure of a prior art reference, it is proper to take into account not only the explicit teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968). In the present case, Botts teaches that the luminaire includes a collimating lens and/or reflection cup that may comprise silicon oxide (e.g., silica) and/or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (see Botts Para. 0054). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that silicon oxide is a commonly used coating material for optical lenses because it provides desirable optical performance, durability, and environmental stability in illumination applications. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that luminaires commonly include painted and coated internal components for corrosion protection, aesthetics, light management, or manufacturing purposes. Accordingly, Botts reasonably suggests the presence of painted and/or coated surfaces within the luminaire. Furthermore, when such painted or coated surfaces are exposed to elevated operating temperatures, they inherently release airborne contaminants, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), through outgassing. Thus, Botts teaches, at least inherently, “one or more painted surfaces that, when heated, release airborne contaminants,” as recited in claim 1.
Applicant is further advised that products of identical or substantially identical structure or composition cannot possess mutually exclusive properties. A structure and its inherent properties are inseparable. Therefore, where the prior art teaches the same or substantially the same structure as that claimed, the claimed property is presumed to be inherently present. When the Office establishes a sound basis for believing that the prior art and the claimed invention are the same or substantially the same, the burden shifts to Applicant to demonstrate that the prior art structure does not inherently possess the claimed property. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP § 2112.01. In this case, Botts discloses a luminaire having substantially the same relevant structure as the claimed luminaire, including internal components that comprise materials such as plastics, coatings, adhesives, lubricants, and painted surfaces, all of which are capable of releasing airborne contaminants, including VOCs, when heated. Therefore, the claimed limitation is inherently met by the structure disclosed in Botts.
Finally, in response to Applicant’s argument that “Botts does not disclose a filter system that directs filtered air onto the lens, as recited in claim 1,” and that “filtered air never contacts the lens; instead, it exits the device entirely through the rear exhaust. Botts does not teach, disclose, or suggest directing filtered air onto a lens, and in fact teaches the opposite airflow architecture,” Applicant is respectfully advised that, during patent examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. The claim interpretation applied during examination is broader than the claim construction applied to issued patents. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require that the filtered air directly impinge upon or physically contact the lens. Rather, the claim broadly recites a filter system that directs filtered air onto the lens. In the present case, Botts teaches that the luminaire may be configured to redirect evacuated, filtered air from the outlet of fan (322) toward the front end (312A) of perimeter wall (312), thereby generating a positive-pressure air curtain (i.e., a jet stream of air) along the perimeter of the target site or zone (see Botts, Fig. 11; Para. 0062–0064). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that this redirected filtered airflow is directed toward the front region of the luminaire, where the optical components, including the lens, are located. The resulting positive-pressure air curtain functions to inhibit contaminants from reaching the optical components by directing filtered air across or toward the front optical region. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Botts teaches or at least reasonably suggests a filter system that directs filtered air onto the lens, as recited 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 Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571)272-7044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights