LED lights

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by Canadian

They haven't gone after AI, from what I've read, because AI has "partnered" with them and is paying Orbitec a licensing fee. However, i can't verify the veracity of that statement.

Looks like you are right. That's pathetic. This patent really needs to be invalidated. I have managed to find Orbitec's full patents (apparently there are two of them) and will have a look at them in the next day or two.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Looks like you are right. That's pathetic. This patent really needs to be invalidated. I have managed to find Orbitec's full patents (apparently there are two of them) and will have a look at them in the next day or two.

Ron you don't have to invent something to have a patent. you can have a patent for specific ways of using pre exhisting products. which is what this one is. and all it has to be is an idea not the actual product. a computer is a good example. IBM patented there arcatexture.. so no one could make accesories for the IBM with out there permission. IBM didn't invent the chips, boards, ect.. but they did invent how to use them togeather in a specific way for a specific purpose.

there is nothing wrong with there patents, or PFO would have wone the lawsuit plane and simple.

it is like the wheel barrow.. the inventer was given a 50 year patent.. remember when you were a kid there was only one type of wheel barrow.. now theres like 50. the pattent ran out about 30 years ago if I remember corectly. even though man had been using buckets with wheels, platforms with wheels ect.. for 100's of years no one ever though to patent it.. one man did and for a long period of time was the only wheelbarrow manufactuer.. now you see pattents on wheel barrows like crazy but there for parts or uneque features or concepts.

trying to say a patent is invallid because all the parts are alreayd being used of have patents would mean there owuld be no patents issued on anything. if I came up with a new type of wave maker I would not be able to get a patent as all the electronics already have a patent. Heck no electronic manufacture at all would be able to patent anything.. just think of it as different types of patents. here is the def of a utility patent

" In general, a utility patent protects the way an invention is used and works. Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new and useful method, process, machine, device, manufactured item, or chemical compound - or any new and useful improvement to the same."

they invented a new and usefull machine.

Steve

[Ron99]

I am aware of how patents work as I have been involved in several and have read many more.

In order to patent something there does have to be some invention. You can get priority for an idea using the PPA (provisional patent application) which gives you a year to file your RPA (regular patent application. The RPA usually does have to have some supporting information to support your claims. To use your wheelbarrow analogy, I can't just say that the existing wheelbarrows are rectangular so I am going to patent an icosahedral wheelbarrow. I would have to describe or show how the icosahedral wheelbarrow is an improvement over the rectangular wheelbarrow. Also, if the icosahedral wheelbarrow would be an obvious application of wheelbarrow technology to anybody skilled in the art of wheelbarrows it would not be patentable.

Thus my opinion of Orbitec's patents. Using LEDs as light sources for aquariums is obvious. It is a natural evolution as new forms of lighting become viable. Just like CF, MH, T5HO, plasma lighting etc. As lighting improves or changes it gets adopted for aquarium use. Now they are trying to claim some spatial and spectral control that leads to better growth. So they should have shown exactly how that spatial and spectral control affects growth and is an advantage over other light sources etc. The patent is way to broad and if issued should have been for a specific set of wavelengths and time periods demonstrated to have an advantage over other set ups.

In any case, I am going to read the full patents when I have a chance in the next day or two and give you a summary then. But from first glance they are not accurate as they imply that other forms of lighting have not been used to promote growth in corals which is wrong. The problem is that patent examiners are usually not experts in the fields of the patents they are reviewing and rarely do the research necessary to understand and qualify the information in the patents. It goes both ways. We had a horror of a patent examiner once who didn't understand our patent, didn't understand the responses to her comments and held up our patent for a while because she was disinterested in doing her job properly and was completely wrong about her understanding of the technology. We finally had to complain to the USPTO about her conduct to get the patent issued.

[monocus]

i have been looking into led lighting as well and i've found two places.for my nano i've found on ebay a do it yourself kit from waterkei-around $70.00 powered by a computer powerbox with different coloured leds and for my 220 gallon at alibaba complete led lighting at 150 ,250 and 350 watt.for two units of the 250s the price is $500 plus delivery and about $200 in brokerage fees

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by monocus

i have been looking into led lighting as well and i've found two places.for my nano i've found on ebay a do it yourself kit from waterkei-around $70.00 powered by a computer powerbox with different coloured leds and for my 220 gallon at alibaba complete led lighting at 150 ,250 and 350 watt.for two units of the 250s the price is $500 plus delivery and about $200 in brokerage fees

Make sure you know what you are getting. The actual LED emitters used (brand, colour and wattage and optics or no optics) make all the difference. All the cheap LED fixtures I have seen, especially those out of China, would probably only be useful for fish only tanks or maybe low light softies at best.

The Eco-Lamps ones are a great example. I haven't looked at the newer KR92 series but after some emails to them about the KR91 series I found out that the emitters were o.5 watt chinese LEDs with no optics so there is no way you could keep anything but lower light demanding corals with it. They would definitely not support SPS. Don't get me wrong, the Eco-Lamps look really nice and probably well built but just know what you are getting in terms of light output vs. what you require in lighting for your livestock.

[monocus]

the ones on alibaba are 1 watt -14000k-20000k(probably more 14000) and blue at 460 nm.as i mostly have gargonians(8)sun coral(4) and carnations(6)lower lighting is not the problem.if i do buy them i am going to j&l aquatics and test them on a meter-still it probably be better than the coralifes i have now(4 over a 220 gal).the only thing i heard that there might be a problem is if one bulb burns out they all go

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by monocus

the ones on alibaba are 1 watt -14000k-20000k(probably more 14000) and blue at 460 nm.as i mostly have gargonians(8)sun coral(4) and carnations(6)lower lighting is not the problem.if i do buy them i am going to j&l aquatics and test them on a meter-still it probably be better than the coralifes i have now(4 over a 220 gal).the only thing i heard that there might be a problem is if one bulb burns out they all go

Yeah, that might work for you and hey, it's your buck I would just worry a bit about the quality of those no name fixtures in terms of build and cooling. if LEDs are run to hot then their lifetime will be severely degraded; lasting 18 to 24 months instead of 5+ years.

Now, as for the patent (sorry to kind of keep the side tangent going on this thread but I think it is a good discussion), I have given the first one a quick read. I'm not an expert on engineering patents as my experience is primarily on the pharmaceutical side. However, I would say at worst this patent should never have been issued and at best it should have been narrowed in scope.

As it is I think you could build an LED fixture without any controller for dimming etc. and not be subject to this patent. What is patented seems to be the whole shebang with controller.

Now, the big question for me is whether the patented technology is obvious or not. If obvious it should not have been patented. Right off the bat their description of prior art is flawed and incorrect:

2. Description of the Prior Art

There are many lighting systems currently available that either promote growth for land-based plants or are used for decoration or illumination of marine life. However, none of the prior art describes a system for promotion of marine life using light-emitting diode based lighting.

Plant growth lighting systems and apparatus are common in many fields that include crop production, germination, tissue culture growth, horticulture, landscape architecture, and specialty growth systems. Although these systems provide for support of plant growth and development in terrestrial applications, none is suitable as a growth system for plants in aquatic settings. For productive growth, marine plants and animal life such as coral and algae require (at least in a limited manner) light of a specific intensity and within a specific range of wavelengths. Light quality and quantity are degraded as you go deeper in water which can preclude healthy sustenance at depths below a few feet without powerful lighting systems.

So the implication is that the existing light systems are not suitable for aquarium use which is just plain wrong. My corals grow fine under my Sunlight Supply Sunblaze fixture which is exactly identical to their hydroponics fixtures. Really, other than public aquariums and a few really wealthy individuals who has a tank more than a couple of feet deep? Are the existing MH, fluorescent and CF systems completely inadequate to support growth? I think not. Furthermore, LED light also degrades as it penetrates deeper into water as opposed to their implication that it magically penetrates the water like a scalded cat.

Marine growth apparatus are available for cultivating or permitting the growth of marine life. These systems typically consist of structures that provide a surface that permits the growth of coral, algae and other marine life, or provide a portable or permanent habitat for marine life to grow within. These include systems that are used for artificial coral reef development, coral reef regeneration, harvesting of marine life for food, and marine aquaculture for jewelry and ornamental aquariums. These inventions are typically passive apparatus that rely on natural solar light for illumination and do not use spatially or spectrally controllable artificial lighting to promote or accelerate growth.

This really has little to do with aquarium lighting.

Finally, aquarium lighting systems are also common and include light sources using fluorescent, incandescent, metal halide or light emitting diodes. These systems can be classified into two types. In type one, the primary purpose is to provide illumination to an underwater space. They contain a housing, light source within said housing, and means of power supply or connection to power supply. The light is not spatially controllable, but instead attempts to provide a consistent intensity above an area of the marine habitat. These systems use fluorescent, incandescent or metal halide light sources, which provide low intensity light with high radiant heat output and no user-defined spectral control. Maintenance is required on these systems (through light source bulb replacement) to maintain light intensity over time.

In type two, the primary purpose of the lighting system is to provide decorative lighting, including artificial moon light or colored lighting, to the marine landscape. These systems are not intended to provide sufficient quantity of light and are only supplemental to other light that supports healthy sustenance and growth. They contain a housing, a colored light source usually consisting of light-emitting diodes, lasers, color wheels or filters combined with a light source, or ultra-violet illumination, and a power supply or connection to power supply. They may or may not be portable or submersible systems that direct light at specific marine features.

Neither of these two types of marine lighting systems and apparatus is designed with an LED source offering spatial control of spectral output which can allow a user-defined or preprogrammed appropriate spectrum for growth of specific marine plant and animal life. Though the above are satisfactory for their designed applications, there is a continuing need for a marine lighting system that can be used to promote marine plant and animal life while offering the user spatial and spectral control.

They imply that other forms of aquarium lighting are low intensity and meant to illuminate the aquarium rather than support growth of corals and algae etc. They also imply no spectral control which is not true as we do that by using different bulbs in different combinations. We also use timers on separate actinics and whiter lights to simulate sunrise and sunset. Not much different then the LED systems as you have spectral control by varying the intensity of separate LEDs of different spectrums. Not really any different then what has come before other than having somewhat finer control of the process.

Now let's examine the actual invention:

DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a lighting system for marine growth and more specifically to a light-emitting diode-based (LED) lighting system that delivers spatially and spectrally controlled light with optional optimal spectral output for growth of marine life. Such systems are particularly applicable to photobioreactors, fish hatcheries and aquariums, among others. Improved growth is achieved due to user programmable spectral and spatial control of light to allow for organism-specific lighting conditions with optional portability and submergibility for even greater light intensity delivery.

LED lighting technology is able to deliver high intensity light into a marine environment in a new way when compared to traditional systems. The use of LEDs enables the system to independently control the intensity of each spectral component as a function of time. This allows a user to provide the optimal wavelengths between 380 nm to 690 nm used by specific marine plant and animal life to support photosynthesis and/or optimum biological development. It provides a single controllable system which can also be used to simulate natural lighting conditions including sunrise, daylight, sunset and moonlight to provide a natural growth cycle, or to alter the lighting schedule to enhance growth during a particular phase of species development. Specific wavelengths can also be programmed to enhance the fluorescence and colors of certain species of fish and coral.

Uuuhhhh, do we not already have systems that can provide optimal wavelengths between 380nm to 690nm and can be controlled with timers to provide sunrise, daylight, sunset and moonlight? How is doing this with LEDs non-obvious? Do we not already have light sources (i.e specific colour bulbs) that enhance the fluorescence and colours of fish and corals?

This system's LED lighting is provided with much greater intensity and lower radiant heat that traditional fluorescent-based lighting systems, changing the formerly high cooling requirements of a complete marine habitat. Another feature of this lighting technology, which is important for promoting and sustaining marine life, is that it does not experience degradation of wavelength with age as does fluorescent lighting. Fluorescent's loss of light intensity over time reduces the growth rate of certain species of marine life by minimizing the photosynthetic energy provided. These variations can also lead to the appearance of certain types of organisms such as cyanobacteria in marine habitats that occur as different light wavelengths are emitted from degraded fluorescent tubes.

Not really true. While LEDs, if properly cooled, will have a lifetime of 5+ year they do degrade over time. Cree emitters will probably loose 20% to 30% of their output over 5 or 6 years. So, yes they do last longer then other sources but they do also degrade over time. That statement is not accurate and I fail to see the invention because a more long lasting light source has been developed by others. Remember, Orbitec did not invent any of these LEDs, they are trying to claim a new use that was not thought of by others and is not obvious to those with knowledge of aquarium lighting.

In addition, LEDs are much more efficient than incandescent lamps and equal to or slightly more efficient that most fluorescent lamps. Safety of the system will also be improved due to low operating voltages and less heat dissipation. The lack of glass bulbs in the system when compared to all other light sources also improves safety by eliminating the explosive failure mode of previous systems.

A weak argument on their part and hardly something worthy of issuing a patent. Most lighting systems have a splash shield to prevent broken bulbs getting into tanks. while it can and does happen on occasion I hardly think that is a major breakthrough.

Specific to the design of this system, the LED light engine can be housed in a waterproof system that, unlike traditional systems, can be submersed into the marine environment. The ability to secure high intensity lighting at any point within the environment enables light to be directed at marine life features that reside at depths far from surface top-mounted lighting. Marine plants and animals require specific light intensity for optimal growth. By providing a means to deliver light of greater intensity, lower power-usage and lower thermal delivery deeper in a tank than comparable overhead lighting, better growth of plant and animal life can be achieved at depths previously unable to sustain some types of marine growth.

I'm not familiar enough with other forms of underwater lighting to comment on this. Maybe underwater fluorescent or MH systems exist?

In general, the system of the present invention includes LED lighting, a controller, a power supply, a light housing, and a cooling system. Optional software can be included to provide users with complete programmable control of spectral, spatial, intensity or pattern of light output. The LED lighting consists of small light engines that are configured into a non-submersible top or side lighting system, or used independently to create a submersible planar, point, or line source of light. The LED light engine consists of a cluster of light-emitting diodes, including both chip, organic and discreet LEDs dependent on the preferred embodiment of the system. The control system can be configured with or without closed loop control, and is the mechanism that allows for user or manufacturer programming of lighting period and pattern, spectral content, or spatial content of the light delivered. The cooling system uses either natural convection with the air to dissipate heat in a top-mounted lighting system, or through water cooling via conduction, forced water cooling or an air-water loop to cool the submersible lighting configurations.

In any case, the only thing I can see that is significantly different from other lighting systems is a finer degree of on the fly control of the lighting (spectrum and intensity etc.) but the question still remains as to whether that would be obvious or not. To me it is.

It's to bad PFO ran out of money before they could really fight this. Also, I think the patent should be attacked from the obviousness standpoint rather then trying to establish a bunch of prior art or by a combination of tactics. Going the prior art route alone is probably subject to to many uncertainties.

[banditpowdercoat]

Ya Alibaba doesnt care about patent's LOL

[Ron99]

Just to add to the above, a utility patent also has to have an invention. The new use for an old something has to be novel and non-obvious. Again, using the wheelbarrow analogy, if I wanted to patent the use of wheelbarrows for something different such as being a mobile platform to stand on so I can reach up higher that use has to be a new one that it was not used for before (i.e, no prior art) and it has to be non-obvious so nobody had ever thought to move the wheelbarrow over to that wall and stand on it to reach the light fixture and change the lightbulb.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Just to add to the above, a utility patent also has to have an invention. The new use for an old something has to be novel and non-obvious.

and to play devils advocate, they do have an invention of a novel idea that is usefull. and they regestered for a patent befor anyone else had applied or was even using such a system comercialy.

personaly I think looking into this is a waist of your time, but if you have time to waist.... PFO had there court battle claiming it was to broad and encompasing and tried to have the pattent revoked and lost..

Pattents serve a purpose and I suport them.. we can't just arbatrarly not honor the ones that incoveniance us. that would be like me taking you to court to have your patent revoked because we don't like the fact that we can't do it to.

Steve