DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on May 3rd, 2026. Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are pending, with claim 21 being new.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16, 18, and 20-21 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.
Claims 1-16, 18, and 20-21 recite “establishing, by the number concentration distribution of the scattering elements, a first sensor reading by a sensor correlating with the wave energy incident upon the sensor at one or more locations in the treatment zone where the wave energy from the wave energy source is blocked by a blocking condition, the first sensor reading at least two times as great as a second sensor reading by the sensor correlating with the wave energy incident upon the sensor at said one or more locations under said blocking condition without the scattering elements in the medium.”
It is unclear how this limits the process. The limitation appears to be a statement of a condition “established” by the presence of the number concentration distribution created in the earlier “introducing” step with no indication of how the process must be carried out to bring about the desired condition or the desired number concentration distribution. The only action referenced is sensing, but though the limitation references sensors readings, the claim does not recite actually taking sensor readings, it merely recites a condition in which a relationship between such sensor readings, if taken, would meet certain parameters (the first sensor reading being at least twice that of the second sensor reading). Even if the sensor readings were claimed as being taken, that would not explain how the process could ensure that the first sensor reading would be twice that of the second sensor reading.
Applicant points to paragraphs 313 & 376 of the specification and figures 14 & 27 to support the limitation. Paragraph 313 and fig. 14 show that a first sensor reading at least two times greater occurs with a fog thickness of 3”, but not with significantly higher or lower fog thicknesses, for the particular fog and wave energy tested. Paragraph 376 and figure 27 relate similar data for a different wave energy (UV rather than visible). Nothing in those paragraphs or figures provides any indication of a manner of determining what number concentrations are required to “establish” the claimed correlation in sensor readings for any given fog and wave energy combination, except for the specific fog and wave energy combinations mapped in the figures, as the data shown is empirical, not calculated from established relationships. Furthermore, they do not specify what actions are required to ensure the desired number concentration distributions are created.
For the purposes of comparison to the prior art, examiner will interpret that limitation as requiring control of the number of scattering elements in the light path to the treatment area (via control of at least one of depth/thickness and density), since that is what will determine the relative difference in sensor readings.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites “wherein at least a portion of the wave energy is configured to induce, via one or more of photolysis, photosynthesis, radiolysis, ultrasonication, and an advanced oxidation process, chemical changes on or in a target at the one or more locations in the treatment zone.” It is unclear what forms of wave energy are considered to be configured to induce these changes. The claim appears to be a statement of a desired result of the irradiation with the wave energy rather than a property or configuration of wave energy.
Based on the portions of the specification applicant points to for support, it appears that at least UVC light, visible light, far-red light, gamma rays, electron beams, and ultrasonic waves can induce these reactions, though it is not clear whether these are the only forms of wave energy that can do so. For the purposes of comparison to the prior art, examiner will treat the claim as requiring one of those forms of wave energy.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “adding at least one modality to induce chemical changes on or in a target.” It is unclear what actions are being claimed. “Adding” is not a clear action and “modality” is so broad as to be meaningless without further context. Based on the portions of the specification cited for support, it appears applicant intends the limitation to encompass at least the following actions: applying chemical disinfectants, heating, pressurizing, applying ultrasound, applying of an RF/pulsed electric field, and generating ozone. Examiner will treat the claim accordingly.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites “the blocking condition comprising at least one of a tape loop wound around a tube containing the sensor, a plurality of magnetic balls wound around a tube containing the sensor, and a wave-energy-absorbing surface positioned in a direction faced by the sensor oriented away from the wave energy source.” The blocking condition, it is noted, is recited in the parent claim as a condition of a sensor whose readings are “established” as having a specific correlation “by the number concentration distribution”.
It is unclear how this further limits the process. The claim appears to further specify the conditions of the sensor readings that are “established” by the presence of the number concentration distribution of elements, but includes no indication of how the process must be carried out to bring about the desired number concentration distribution.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites “the one or more locations in the treatment zone not in a direct line of sight of the wave energy source.” The locations, it is noted, are recited in the parent claim as the locations of a sensor whose readings are “established” as having a specific correlation “by the number concentration distribution”.
It is unclear how this further limits the process. The claim appears to further specify the conditions of the sensor readings that are “established” by the presence of the number concentration distribution of elements, but includes no indication of how the process must be carried out to bring about the desired number concentration distribution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2006 042 877 (the ‘877 publication).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘877 publication discloses an irradiation method comprising:
introducing, by a generator a number concentration distribution of scattering elements into a medium (‘The aerosol jet is thus directed onto the surface to be hardened’) in a path of wave energy propagating from a wave energy source in or toward a treatment zone (‘aerosol in the beam path of the UV emitter’);
redirecting, by the scattering elements, at least some of the wave energy in or toward the treatment zone (inherent, also ‘a radiation-scattering phase is generated or introduced, which directs scattered light or scattered radiation into the shadowed areas’); and
establishing, by the number concentration distribution of the scattering elements, a first sensor reading by a sensor correlating with the wave energy incident upon the sensor at one or more locations in the treatment zone where the wave energy from the wave energy source is blocked by a blocking condition, the first sensor reading at least two times as great as a second sensor reading by the sensor correlating with the wave energy incident upon the sensor at said one or more locations under said blocking condition without the scattering elements in the medium (‘the aerosol jet can be widened (atomized) or be focused.’).
Regarding claim 2, the ‘877 publication discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the wave energy includes at least one of electromagnetic energy, elastic energy, and quantum particle de Broglie wave energy ("Suitable radiation is UV light, high-energy radiation, or actinic radiation.').
Regarding claim 4, the ‘877 publication discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein at least some of the scattering elements are selected from inert and reactive with one or more substances on or in a target at the one or more locations in the treatment zone (‘In a first embodiment of the radiation-scattering phase, be the liquid drops essentially water, alcohols, polyhydric alcohols or their mixtures formed. … In a further embodiment of the invention is the radiation-scattering phase of a smoke or dust of Microparticles of polymers, waxes, fatty acids, polyethylene glycols and / or Polypropylene glycols is formed.’).
Regarding claim 9, the ‘877 publication discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: controlling one or more of a spatial and a temporal distribution of the scattering elements (‘the aerosol jet can be widened (atomized) or be focused.’).
Regarding claim 11, the ‘877 publication discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: adding at least one modality to induce chemical changes on or in a target (‘For better handling, it may be expedient to pre-cure the UV-curable lacquer before curing with UV light or high-energy radiation, first by drying, heating or low-light exposure.’).
Regarding claim 13, the ‘877 publication discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: removing scattering elements or portions thereof from on or around a target (‘It is advantageous to microparticles to choose, which are soluble in water or simple organic solvents, so that deposits on the hardened Lack are easily removable.’).
Regarding claim 18, the ‘877 publication discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the scattering elements include dry fog from an atomizer (‘The liquid atomizer generates while an aerosol’).
Regarding claim 19, the ‘877 publication discloses an irradiation device comprising:
a wave energy source (‘UV emitter’);
a generator configured to introduce a number concentration of scattering elements into a medium in a path of a wave energy propagating from the wave energy source in or toward a treatment zones (‘nozzle’); and
the generator configured to establish the number concentration distribution of the scattering elements present in the medium (inherent in a nozzle) so the wave energy incident at the one or more locations in the treatment zone blocked, by a blocking condition, from receiving the wave energy directly from the wave energy source is at least two times as great as the wave energy incident at the one or more locations in the treatment zone blocked, by the blocking condition, from receiving the wave energy directly from the wave energy source with the scattering elements absent from the medium (intended use, non-limiting).
Regarding claim 20, the ‘877 publication discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: the blocking condition comprising at least one of a tape loop wound around a tube containing the sensor, a plurality of magnetic balls wound around a tube containing the sensor, and a wave-energy-absorbing surface positioned in a direction faced by the sensor oriented away from the wave energy source (further specifies an intended result, does not appear to add anything to the claim and rejected for the same reasons as parent claim).
Regarding claim 21, the ‘877 publication discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising the one or more locations in the treatment zone not in direct line of sight of the wave energy source (further specifies an intended result, does not appear to add anything to the claim and rejected for the same reasons as parent claim).
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 14, 16, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,050,383 (Gray).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘877 publication discloses an irradiation method comprising:
introducing, by a generator a number concentration distribution of scattering elements into a medium (‘Skilled artisans will appreciate that the nozzles 34 may be configured to deliver the medium in the form of a stream, a spray, a mist or in any manner so as to widely disperse the medium into the chamber 14.’) in a path of wave energy propagating from a wave energy source in or toward a treatment zone (‘comprising an ultraviolet light emitting a wavelength of light anywhere between 122-230 nm projected toward the article, and a medium dispersed about the article and intersecting with the projected ultraviolet light,’);
redirecting, by the scattering elements, at least some of the wave energy in or toward the treatment zone (inherent, at least some of the UV light will scatter off the atomized droplets in its path, and at least some of those scatterings will be in or toward the treatment zone because the droplets are in and near the treatment zone); and
establishing, by the number concentration distribution of the scattering elements, a first sensor reading by a sensor correlating with the wave energy incident upon the sensor at one or more locations in the treatment zone where the wave energy from the wave energy source is blocked by a blocking condition, the first sensor reading at least two times as great as a second sensor reading by the sensor correlating with the wave energy incident upon the sensor at said one or more locations under said blocking condition without the scattering elements in the medium (‘adjusting at least one of the wavelength of said ultraviolet light or a concentration of said medium to optimize kill effectiveness of selected microbes.’ Also ‘upon receiving input from a technician or user, controls the operation of the light, the delivery of the medium to within the enclosure, the atomization of the medium and the transport of the article through the chamber as needed.’).
Regarding claim 2, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the wave energy includes at least one of electromagnetic energy, elastic energy, and quantum particle de Broglie wave energy (‘ultraviolet light’).
Regarding claim 3, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the wave energy is configured to induce, via one or more of photolysis, photosynthesis, radiolysis, ultrasonication, and an advanced oxidation process, chemical changes on or in a target at the one or more locations in the treatment zone (‘ultraviolet light emitting a wavelength of light anywhere between 122-230 nm’ also ‘The medium interacts with the frequency of light to generate reactive oxygen species that eliminate microbes on the article.’).
Regarding claim 4, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein at least some of the scattering elements are selected from inert and reactive with one or more substances on or in a target at the one or more locations in the treatment zone (‘In some embodiments, a water and/or alcohol medium could be sprayed or misted between the ultraviolet light source and the substrate of the article.’).
Regarding claim 5, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: adjusting one or more of an intensity, a spatial distribution, a temporal distribution, and a spectral distribution of the wave energy (‘adjusting at least one of the wavelength of said ultraviolet light or a concentration of said medium to optimize kill effectiveness of selected microbes.’ Also ‘upon receiving input from a technician or user, controls the operation of the light, the delivery of the medium to within the enclosure, the atomization of the medium and the transport of the article through the chamber as needed.’).
Regarding claim 6, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: adjusting one or more of a composition, the number concentration, a temperature, and a velocity of the scattering elements (‘adjusting at least one of the wavelength of said ultraviolet light or a concentration of said medium to optimize kill effectiveness of selected microbes.’ Also ‘upon receiving input from a technician or user, controls the operation of the light, the delivery of the medium to within the enclosure, the atomization of the medium and the transport of the article through the chamber as needed.’).
Regarding claim 7, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: adjusting at least one parameter influencing the size distribution of the scattering elements (‘Skilled artisans will appreciate that the nozzles 34 may be configured to deliver the medium in the form of a stream, a spray, a mist or in any manner so as to widely disperse the medium into the chamber 14. This can be done by adjusting the size of the nozzle's outlet.’ Also ‘upon receiving input from a technician or user, controls the operation of the light, the delivery of the medium to within the enclosure, the atomization of the medium and the transport of the article through the chamber as needed.’).
Regarding claim 8, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: adjusting one or more of a composition, a temperature, and a pressure of the medium (‘a liquid media and optionally, with selected gases’ and ‘wherein said medium comprises at least two substituents, one said substituent is nitrogen gas and the other said substituent is a liquid,’ Also ‘upon receiving input from a technician or user, controls the operation of the light, the delivery of the medium to within the enclosure, the atomization of the medium and the transport of the article through the chamber as needed.’).
Regarding claim 9, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: controlling one or more of a spatial and a temporal distribution of the scattering elements (‘controls the operation of the light, the delivery of the medium to within the enclosure, the atomization of the medium and the transport of the article through the chamber as needed.’).
Regarding claim 11, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: adding at least one modality to induce chemical changes on or in a target (‘Use of an alcohol media produces additional efficacy beyond the ultraviolet light itself wherein the UV contribution broadens the spectrum of the microbe kill.’ also ‘wherein the medium and the ultraviolet light mix so as to generate reactive oxygen species that come in contact with and kill microbes on the article.’).
Regarding claim 14, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: isolating at least some of the scattering elements from at least some of an influence of a fluid motion (inherent in a walled tunnel).
Regarding claim 16, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: adjusting the spatial orientation of a target (‘Exposure may consist of rotating and/or moving the article to ensure every surface is exposed to a combination of the light and the medium.’).
Regarding claim 18, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the scattering elements include dry fog from an atomizer (‘Indeed, the droplets may be referred to as "atomized.").
Regarding claim 19, Gray discloses an irradiation device comprising:
a wave energy source (element 30);
a generator configured to introduce a number concentration of scattering elements into a medium in a path of a wave energy propagating from the wave energy source in or toward a treatment zones (element 34); and
the generator configured to establish the number concentration distribution of the scattering elements present in the medium (element 34) so the wave energy incident at the one or more locations in the treatment zone blocked, by a blocking condition, from receiving the wave energy directly from the wave energy source is at least two times as great as the wave energy incident at the one or more locations in the treatment zone blocked, by the blocking condition, from receiving the wave energy directly from the wave energy source with the scattering elements absent from the medium (intended use, non-limiting).
Regarding claim 20, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: the blocking condition comprising at least one of a tape loop wound around a tube containing the sensor, a plurality of magnetic balls wound around a tube containing the sensor, and a wave-energy-absorbing surface positioned in a direction faced by the sensor oriented away from the wave energy source (further specifies an intended result, does not appear to add anything to the claim and rejected for the same reasons as parent claim).
Regarding claim 21, Gray discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising the one or more locations in the treatment zone not in direct line of sight of the wave energy source (further specifies an intended result, does not appear to add anything to the claim and rejected for the same reasons as parent claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the ‘877 publication as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 2018/0243458 (Shatalov et al.)
Regarding claim 15, the ‘877 publication discloses the claimed invention except for isolating at least some of the scattering elements from impinging on a target at the one or more locations in the treatment zone. Shatalov et al. discloses placing a UV transmissive barrier between a target surface and a UV light source ("In this embodiment, an ultraviolet radiation source 8012 including a plurality of emitters 8013 is positioned over a shelf 8072. A storage container (e.g., box) 8054 including a set of items (e.g., strawberries) 8056 is located on top of the shelf 8072. Although only one storage container 8054 is shown on the shelf 8072, it is understood that any number of storage containers can be located on the shelf. In an embodiment, the storage container 8054 may be formed of a UV transparent material, such as a UV transparent fluoropolymer, so that the set of items 8056 located within the storage container 8054 can be exposed to the ultraviolet radiation generated by the ultraviolet radiation source 8012." P 94).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of the ‘877 publication to isolate at least some of the scattering elements from impinging on a target at the one or more locations in the treatment zone by placing such a UV transmissive barrier so that the scattering phase is maintained in the area between the radiation source and the target for an extended period of time, allowing scattering to continue for as long as required to complete the curing.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0069360 (Shane et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Gray discloses the claimed invention except for modifying the electrostatic charge of one or more of a target and at least some of the scattering elements. Shane et al. discloses modifying the electrostatic charge of a mist of cleaning fluid (‘In particular embodiments, the high voltage actuation charges the mist and further atomizes the droplets.’ P 76). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Gray to include the electrostatic charging step of Shane et al. because this increases the level of atomization, as disclosed by Shane et al. above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0088256 (Robinson et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Gray discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: controlling one or more properties of at least one of the wave energy, the scattering elements in the medium, and the medium (‘controls the operation of the light, the delivery of the medium to within the enclosure, the atomization of the medium and the transport of the article through the chamber as needed.’).
Gray et al. does not disclose estimating the number concentration of the scattering elements in the medium to obtain an estimated number concentration of the scattering elements in the medium; and using the estimated number concentration in the control method. Robinson et al. discloses a method of disinfecting with aerosols that includes estimating the number concentration of the scattering elements in the medium to obtain an estimated number concentration of the scattering elements in the medium and using the estimated number concentration in a control method (‘A method for controlling mist in a vehicle includes pumping fluid to a misting device, generating a mist of fluid, pumping the mist into a vehicle ventilation system, measuring a particle concentration, and manipulating a misting device, pump, and/or fan using a controller to keep the particle concentration above a threshold.’ abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed modify Gray to include the step of estimating the concentration and feeding this information back to the control method to ensure that the process is functioning as intended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 3rd, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights