Reefers and Fans of LEDs Unite!

[evilc66]

hey evil would a group of scientists and marine biologits who have experimented with LED used on coral growth suffice?

 

Here's a article that was an experiment using LEDS to test out coral growth copyrighted in 2003 so it may be old enough?. Eh, maybe it will help who knows.

 

LED experiment on coral growth

No, this is good.

[Walking_Target]

It occurs to me that one of the grounds for their patent is the 'requirement' of marine life to have a specific spectrum.

 

Really, anything that is capable of producing PAR is all that is needed to grow corals, therefore anything that can be used to grow terrestrial plants should be capable of growing coral - it may not look as nice, but so long as it allows coral to grow, it should count against the patent.

[evilc66]

The bias of red and blue is opposite for plants. They need more red, and red in high quantities can be very damaging to corals.

[supernip]

I've been following the comments on reefbuilders, I was curious as to who filed the third party submission and if there were multiple, from more than one party.

 

Also, as a patent is supposed to be a novel invention, doesn't it become void if you can find a single example prior to the patent? Especially if that example were publicly available; such as a forum or an online magazine?

[blibo]

Check out this forum thread...

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumap...d-lighting.html

The guy was led on his planted tank, though not high powered, and had some pretty good results.

[evilc66]

I've been following the comments on reefbuilders, I was curious as to who filed the third party submission and if there were multiple, from more than one party.

 

Also, as a patent is supposed to be a novel invention, doesn't it become void if you can find a single example prior to the patent? Especially if that example were publicly available; such as a forum or an online magazine?

You would think it would be that simple, but once the prior art has been submitted, it needs to be reviewed for validity. Sadly, Orbitech has the chance to dispute the claims. There are other methods to go about attacking the patent other than the third part submission, but it's much more drawn out, and considerably more expensive. Not great for an individual, but if an industry group got together, then the costs would be spread about a little more (there are lawyer fees involved with the prefered method).

 

Check out this forum thread...

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumap...d-lighting.html

The guy was led on his planted tank, though not high powered, and had some pretty good results.

Anything we get is good. Remember to submit these to Reefbuilders also.

[thesmokingman]

Are they patent squatting?

[evilc66]

While it looks that way, I don't think that is the intent. Orbitech is a large government research company, and the patent is based around some of the research they do. It's just that none of it is unique to the point of deserving a patent.

[racerfreak]

maybe it's me but idk how you can patent something that was invented a long time ago and used widely in today's society (aka the car)

 

http://www.ehow.com/about_5489715_invented-led-lights.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led

 

It actually sounds like they are trying to monopolize on led's and that is illegal? Doesn't the government want everyone to go green, and wouldn't it be easier to go green with everyone being able to use led's and have them cost efficient?

 

I really don't see a difference in a led for my tv and one to grow coral or the ones in my car. it's like patenting a 600w light bulb compared to a 40w bulb, or patenting a color or rocks. They can patent "Orbitech LED's" the name but not a massively used product that will help society. It's like when windows got too big and started monopolizing computers.

[evilc66]

They aren't patenting a technology, but the use of a technology. By all rights, that's perfectly fair. What's wrong here is that it isn't a unique idea and has been shown to be done before.

[mrbigshot]

i don't think 2003 will be far enough back, when reading sanjay's deposition when he was a witness they were talking about prior patents as far back as 1988, the first led array that sanjay tested were all the way back in 2001. the early results were that you would need about 2300 of them to light an aquarium for fish only in 1993.

 

http://glassbox-design.com/wp-content/uplo...d-watermark.pdf

[evilc66]

We only need to prove that there is suffucient prior art before the submission of the patent application. While we are digging up much the same of what has been brought up before, there is always a chance that someone might find something new.

[thesmokingman]

Might this have something to do with NASA and led's in regards to growing stuff in space? Aerospace to aerospace...

 

It really looks illogical to be awarded a patent for something so mundane its akin to wearing knee pads while skating.

[Ron99]

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. I believe there is a mechanism to ask for a re-examination of a patent and maybe that is worth looking at. What I write below is some of what I posted in our discussion on our Canadian board but I thought it would be worth repeating here.

 

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 to 8 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.

[DashingAquatics]

What about the use of "High Power LED TECH" High power leds are clearly seperate from normal LEDs? Could we win this battle with the intensity of the led?

[evilc66]

Not really, because the intensity of the LED is not specified in the patent.

[h3llphyre]

ately, holding a patent means that anyone that builds something using the patents claims is infringing, and can be sued. DIY or not, you can be a potential target.

 

Actually, this is untrue. The DIY builder is excluded from patent infringement, pending they don't try and market the item they built. For personal use, it's fine. I can dig up the actual law if anyone would like to see it.

 

Also, the DIY market is a work around for patents. Selling the parts (unassembled) to build a patented device is not illegal. You'll find that a lot of DIY electronics kits are sold ONLY unassembled and there is a reason behind this. It's not illegal to sell a PWM Dimmer and an LED array separately. What is illegal is selling them integrated together, or even meant to be used together.

 

Saying all that, I am adamantly opposed to patents with the current method of enforcement and lifetime. They are serving a group that was intentionally meant to be protected AGAINST. If a company refuses to produce a product with the patented technology, they should lose the patent. A patent should only be held for a short period of time, then go "public domain". This company is truly holding up to the "patent troll" title. I hope everyone can find the means to take the patent down, but let's not drive the cause through misinformation.

[farkwar]

http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-10...s-diy-infringe/

[evilc66]

Yes. I have been told the same thing by a patent attourney.

[Deep Thief]

I could be wrong here, but it seems that their patent is based on the ability to specturally control the light through programing. If this is the case, why then is a led array subject to this patent. If I put together a led array at a specific spectrum, that in and of itself should not infringe on this patent. Now if I put together a led array that I could control the spectrum of light other wise, then fine. Just turning my lights on and off does not mean I can specturally control the leds. They are set from the factory at what they are.

 

Now if I take an array of leds and use a white and a red and a blue and a yellow and then take and use them in different intensities to create a custom spectrum that I can change and control, then I would think I have infringed on their patent.

 

Am I missing something here? They also mention the ability to submerge the lights. I don't see any of us using a submerged led array of lights. Mark

 

Except maybe Stevie T with his submersible fuge lights. J/K

[h3llphyre]

Yes. I have been told the same thing by a patent attourney.

 

I'm going to use you as an example evil.

 

What IS allowed in the US, is building a device that is patented, for research use. I'd certainly say that your actions fall under "research", which is exempted from patent litigation.

 

Selling a kit that is all inclusive, but unassembled is quasi legal (but can be prosecuted against under patent law), but what doesn't fall into the scope of this argument, is selling/buying individual components. A PWM controller isn't prohibited under patent law, an LED power supply isn't prohibited under patent law, and putting LEDs over a reef tank isn't prohibited under patent law. What *IS* prohibited is using all three, over a reef tank, to control the spectral output... which quite a few people here have done.

 

I support your statement, that Orbitec should be chased after, as being a blatant patent troll. However, I'm not worried about my endeavors of experimenting with LED lighting over reef tanks (and other uses), as I'm literally doing research, which is fine under US law. I wish we had a system more like european law, which makes ALL private, non-commercial use fine.

 

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I wanted to make sure everyone understood that doing research, which one could argue, is legal under US patent law.

[farkwar]

Spectrally change means you can change the color.

 

Their patent attempts to covers the entire visible light spectrum.

 

Spatial change means they are attempting to cover all sizes of tanks.

From picos to fish farms.

And lumen intensity.

 

Attempting to cover fixtures above the tank and at any depth inside, submerged in the water.

 

And from PAR intensity zero to 1000.

[bitts]

ok this is well wrong and smells like poo.

theres gotta be something to do. just dont know what.

[jeremai]

evil, how will the hobby adjust itself if the patent holds? could you (meaning retailers and manufacturers) sell 'dimming devices' separately from the actual LED fixtures and avoid legal entanglement, or will the hobby just have to settle for single-intensity systems?

[Ron99]

evil, how will the hobby adjust itself if the patent holds? could you (meaning retailers and manufacturers) sell 'dimming devices' separately from the actual LED fixtures and avoid legal entanglement, or will the hobby just have to settle for single-intensity systems?

 

If the new patent extension stands then any aquarium system using LEDs as a primary light source will have to pay a license fee to Orbitec. You may be able to get away with moonlights or actinic supplementation.