LED lights

[banditpowdercoat]

Ya Alibaba doesnt care about patent's LOL

[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

[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

[albert_dao]

PFO lost that battle because they ran out of money, not because the patent was valid.

[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.

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

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

Well see my last post to decide whether they have an invention or not. Some say yes, some say no.

I do support patents wholeheartedly but the patent system has its flaws and sometimes stupid patents like this one get through that cause problems for an industry and favour people who really invented nothing (ever heard of patent trolls?). Sorry, using LEDs for aquarium lighting is not an invention, it is obvious. You can't patent something that is obvious or an obvious improvement on existing technology. At the risk of repeating myself it HAS to be non-obvious and novel.

In pharmaceuticals if there is a drug out that treats arthritis by an anti-inflammatory mechanism we cannot patent that drug for the treatment of another autoimmune disease by means of anti-inflammatory activity. That would be an obvious extension of its utility. We could however, file a use patent on that drug if we found that it had another activity besides being an anti-inflammatory that say prevented hair loss. The hair loss prevention is unrelated, unknown and unexpected in relation to the anti-arthritis activity. So I fail to see how using a light source to light an aquarium is not obvious

Now if Orbitec have some specific control scheme or can demonstrate that specific spectra over specific time periods enhance growth then that would be an invention. They have not done that. They have simply stated that throwing a controller on an LED array to control colour spectrum and time is something new that wasn't obvious and and they were the first to think of it. That's BS.

And as mentioned above, the PFO lawsuit never reached its conclusion because they went belly up.

[banditpowdercoat]

I totally agree with you and will back you if you decide to fight it. But really, what can we, a group of reefers do? If PFO ran out of money fighing, then Orbitec has some deep pockets or REALLLY good lawyers. I couldnt afford a PFO fixture when it came out, and I certainly can't afford to fight Orbitec for the Patent

[Crytone]

What gets me is the LED manufacturers likely HATE this patent. They'd easily sell more LEDs if this patent didn't exist.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Well see my last post to decide whether they have an invention or not. Some say yes, some say no.

I do support patents wholeheartedly but the patent system has its flaws and sometimes stupid patents like this one get through that cause problems for an industry and favour people who really invented nothing (ever heard of patent trolls?). Sorry, using LEDs for aquarium lighting is not an invention, it is obvious. You can't patent something that is obvious or an obvious improvement on existing technology. At the risk of repeating myself it HAS to be non-obvious and novel.

In pharmaceuticals if there is a drug out that treats arthritis by an anti-inflammatory mechanism we cannot patent that drug for the treatment of another autoimmune disease by means of anti-inflammatory activity. That would be an obvious extension of its utility. We could however, file a use patent on that drug if we found that it had another activity besides being an anti-inflammatory that say prevented hair loss. The hair loss prevention is unrelated, unknown and unexpected in relation to the anti-arthritis activity. So I fail to see how using a light source to light an aquarium is not obvious

Now if Orbitec have some specific control scheme or can demonstrate that specific spectra over specific time periods enhance growth then that would be an invention. They have not done that. They have simply stated that throwing a controller on an LED array to control colour spectrum and time is something new that wasn't obvious and and they were the first to think of it. That's BS.

And as mentioned above, the PFO lawsuit never reached its conclusion because they went belly up.

ok one thing here is your caught in the time warp.. you keep reading this as if it was applied for today.. they files in 2002 and at that time there was no discusion of using LEDs for anything but acent lighting as crees wern't out/afordable yet and we were only playing with 5mm LEDs. so at the time this was aplied for we were only using leds for decrative purposes. I even did PAR tests on 5mm leds and they were junk. untill 3watt leds were redily availble no one used leds as a primary lighting source then a while later solarus came out with 3 watt leds but they were off shore cheep ones that had a lot of burn out problems.

also you should get 50000 hours befor you lose 15 to 20 % or the brightness only the spectral wavelenth stays the same where in other lights both the brightness and wavelenght are decreased/changed. so there is some valid points there.

I don't know if you would get away with making a system with out a controler.. it looks like the controler is an inclusion to the main patent of using one or more LEDs over an aquarium to permote grother of marine life.. I would have to read it agin though.. one thing that did pop into my head is you could maybe sell a system for fresh water tanks and sell it as an ornamental light.. the only thing I would wonder about is the spectral wavelenth for color they mention.. that might be a catch all for fresh water use.. but if it is sold as an accent light it might be able to squeek through as long as you don't think anyone would use it as a primary light..

now from my understanding the drug trade is heavy regulated by the goverment to do with patents also to allow the goverment and medical system access to clone drugs for cheep.

with this one you have to look at it not as you you would a drug where you are dealing with a specific compound but rater.. hmm whats the best way to look at it.. lets say I go to home depot and buy a bunch of off the shelf stuff. with that I go home and build a system that automates a rotatiller so it will follow a string and keep your garden tilled inbetween the rows. did I invent the rotatiller... no.. did I invent any parts I used.. no, but I did invent the process and use of the combanation of these parts to achieve a purpose. so I can now patent it and sell them myselves or go in partnership with another company who wants to build it and sell them and give me a cut.. that is what they have done.

Steve

[Edmonton newbie]

i have been searching for some good leds in canada but nobody seems to carry the good cree ex-r mounted on the star boards if anybody is thinking about a group buy out of the states count me in