The use of ultraviolet (UV) light to kill harmful microorganisms has been known for decades, and has been widely used in various applications such as air and water disinfection, and surface sterilization. However, the use of conventional UV light sources (typically, those in the range of 200-400 nm) for these applications has several drawbacks, including the potential for photoreactivation (i.e., when the microorganisms that have been inactivated by UV light can be reactivated by exposure to visible light), and the potential for human exposure to harmful UV radiation.
Enter Far-UVC light, a new form of UV light that has been shown to be highly effective in killing harmful microorganisms, including bacteria and viruses, without the potential for photoreactivation or human harm. Far-UVC light has a wavelength of 222 nm, which lies in the deep-UV region and is highly effective in killing harmful microorganisms while being harmless to human skin and eyes. This makes Far-UVC light an exciting new development in the field of sterilization and disinfection, and has the potential to revolutionize the way we keep our environments safe and germ-free.
In this article, we will explore the Far-UVC patent trail, and how it could end the monopolization of the natural germicidal effect of 222 nm UV light.
The Far-UVC Patent Trail
The use of Far-UVC light for disinfection and sterilization purposes is still a relatively new field, and as such, there are only a limited number of patents that have been granted for Far-UVC light-based products and systems. However, the number of Far-UVC patents is growing, and there are several key players in the field who have been granted patents for their Far-UVC light-based products and systems.
One such key player is the Patent Owner in a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding, who has filed a motion to amend their original claims in order to substitute proposed claims 12-192 for the original claims 12-18 that were challenged in a petition filed by the opposition party. However, the opposition argues that the substitute claims do not meet the statutory requirements for amendment under 35 U.S.C. §316(d) and the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. §42.121, and that even if the substitute claims are found to meet the statutory requirements, they are still unpatentable.
The opposition argues that the patentability of the substitute claims appears to rest on excluding a prior art reference (Clauss) by establishing an earlier priority date, but that the priority claim is flawed on both procedural and substantive grounds, and that the substitute claims are unpatentable over the combination of other prior art references (Brown-Skrobot and Clauss). The opposition also argues that the new proposed claim 19 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Brown-Skrobot, Clauss, and another prior art reference (Liang).
The Importance of Prior Art in the Far-UVC Patent Trail
When it comes to patenting Far-UVC light-based products and systems, the prior art (i.e., existing knowledge and technology in the field) is of critical importance. The prior art determines what is already known and what is new, and it is used to determine the patentability of a claimed invention.
In the case of the Far-UVC patent at hand, the opposition argues that the Patent Owner has not provided adequate written description support for the claims being made, and that the proposed claims are unpatentable over the prior art references cited. The prior art references include prior patents, scientific articles, and other forms of public disclosures related to Far-UVC light and its applications.
The outcome of the Far-UVC patent trial will have significant implications for the future of the Far-UVC light industry. If the Patent Owner is successful in securing the patent for their Far-UVC light-based products and systems, they will have a monopoly on the use of Far-UVC light in these applications, which could limit the growth of the industry and restrict access to this important new technology. On the other hand, if the opposition is successful in invalidating the patent, it will open up the field for other players to enter and innovate, potentially leading to faster growth and wider availability of Far-UVC light-based products and systems.
The Far-UVC patent trial is a crucial event in the development of the Far-UVC light industry. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of this promising new technology, and will determine whether the natural germicidal effect of 222 nm UV light will continue to be monopolized by a single player, or whether it will be widely available for the benefit of society. Regardless of the outcome, the Far-UVC patent trial highlights the importance of protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights in the field of technology, and underscores the need for careful consideration of the prior art in determining the patentability of new inventions.
In conclusion, the opposition argues that the substitute claims of the patent do not meet the statutory requirements for amendment under 35 U.S.C. §316(d) and the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. §42.121. The opposition also argues that even if the substitute claims are found to meet the statutory requirements, they are still unpatentable. The priority claim of the patent owner is flawed on both procedural and substantive grounds and the substitute claims are unpatentable over the combination of other prior art references. The substitute claim 19 is also unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Brown-Skrobot, Clauss, and another prior art reference (Liang). The patent owner has not provided adequate written description support for the substitute claims and the earliest effective filing date for the substitute claims is July 31, 2007. The opposition has demonstrated that the use of UV light for air disinfection was already known in the art and specifically disclosed in a published U.S. patent application. The combination of references Liang, Brown-Skrobot, and Clauss teaches a process for air sterilization that maximizes killing of microorganisms and minimizes photoreactivation.
What is the patent in question about?
The patent in question relates to the disinfection of air using UV light.
Who is the opposition in the patent trial?
The opposition in the patent trial is the party that is challenging the patent owner’s attempt to claim priority for a previous application in a patent interference proceeding.
What is the argument of the opposition in the patent trial?
The opposition argues that the patent owner has failed to provide adequate written description support for certain substitute claims in the patent. The opposition also argues that the substitute claims of the patent do not meet the statutory requirements for amendment and are unpatentable over the combination of other prior art references.
What is the conclusion of the opposition in the patent trial?
The conclusion of the opposition is that the substitute claims of the patent are unpatentable and the patent owner has not provided adequate written description support for the substitute claims. The earliest effective filing date for the substitute claims is July 31, 2007 and the use of UV light for air disinfection was already known in the art.
“Far-UVC Light: The Revolution in Sterilization and Disinfection Technology”
“The Rise of Far-UVC: The New Frontier in Germ-Free Environments”
“From Conventional UV to Far-UVC: A Breakthrough in Microbe Killing Technology”
“Say Goodbye to Photoreactivation with Far-UVC Light”
“The Power of 222nm: How Far-UVC is Changing the Game in Disinfection”
“Get ready to bid farewell to harmful UV radiation with #FarUVC light! #sterilization #disinfection”
“Discover how #FarUVC light is changing the game in germ-free environments. #microbekilling #innovation”
“Say goodbye to photoreactivation and hello to safe, effective sterilization with #FarUVC. #UVlight”
“Looking for a way to keep your environment safe and germ-free? Look no further than #FarUVC! #healthyliving”
“Experience the power of 222nm with #FarUVC light. The future of sterilization and disinfection. #UVlighttechnology”