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 .
FINAL ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/19/2026 has been received and claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, and 22-33 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 31 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 2 of Claim 31, delete both instances of “visual” and insert --visible--;
in line 1 of Claim 33, insert --to be cleaned-- after “component”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no written description support for the limitations regarding “the predetermined period of time” being the quantities set forth in claims 26-28 for “change from the first state to the second state” as the disclosure appears to indicate that the quantities set forth is directed to a predetermined period of time for remaining in the second state (see [0047]) rather than a predetermined period of time to change from a first state to a second state (see [0063]).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claims 26-28, it is not clear to which change the predetermined period of time is referring to, whether to the time period for remaining in the second state or to change from a first state to a second state or to change from a second state to a first state.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the second visual indicator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 22-25, 29-31 and 33 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the primary reason for allowance of the claims is due to inclusion of limitation “that the photochromatic indicator comprises a color gradient over one or more directions, wherein the color gradient changing from the first state to the second state indicates that the component to be clean is being cleaned and wherein the color gradient changing from the second state to the first state indicates that the component to be clean needs to be cleaned”. While prior art such as Dytioco (20180369440) in view of Alvarez (20200164988), Sawhney (20010046518) and/or Walsh (9603416), and Das (20180111177) along with Smith (11738587) teaches a system as set forth in claims 1 and 21 as discussed in paragraphs 6 and 7 on pp. 3-6 and 9-10 of Office Action mailed 2/25/2026, none of Dytioco, Alvarez, Sawhney and/or Walsh, Das and Smith specifically teaches “that the photochromatic indicator comprises a color gradient over one or more directions, wherein the color gradient changing from the first state to the second state indicates that the component to be clean is being cleaned and wherein the color gradient changing from the second state to the first state indicates that the component to be clean needs to be cleaned”. In addition, while prior art of Dayton (WO2017100225) discloses a photochromic indicator (10) having three separate regions (12A, 12B, 12C) that will produce different response to an exposure to a radiation quantity and/or intensity of UVC light (see entire document, particularly pp. 4-5 [0017]) which exhibits different visible responses, Dayton (‘225) merely discloses use of a varying thickness of the photochromatic regions made of the same composition and thus, the photochromatic indicator (1) of Dayton (‘225) does not include two or more photochromatic pigments where each of the two or more photochromatic pigments have an at least one of a different concentration or a different composition, nor specifically teaches that the different visible responses is a color gradient. In addition, while prior art of Francois (KR20170072287) teaches a UV responsive color gradient optical sensor (120) (see Figure 14), the optical sensor (120) of Francois (‘287) is for a wearable object to detect ambient UV radiation to monitor harmful effect to a user’s skin and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have been motivated to combine an optical sensor for an everyday human wearable object/use with a photochromatic indicator that is to be attached to a non-animate component to be exposed and cleaned by a system comprised of a UV light source. Finally, while prior art of Moore (5447688) appears to teach a color gradient indicator that detects a gaseous/volatile analyte (see Figure 3), Moore (‘688) does not teach a UV responsive photochromatic indicator. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a system comprised of components in the configuration as set forth in the claims, particularly a “photochromatic indicator [that] comprises a color gradient over one or more directions, wherein the color gradient changing from the first state to the second state indicates that the component to be clean is being cleaned and wherein the color gradient changing from the second state to the first state indicates that the component to be clean needs to be cleaned” in combination with the other claimed structures and configuration. Moreover, applicant’s argument in regard to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 22 on p. 7 of Remarks is found persuasive and this rejection has been withdrawn and the claim has been allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 26-28 and 32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of the same rejections applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights