DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on October 20th, 2025. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending.
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 and 18-20 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.
The claims recite “radiant connections of wave energy from the source to the target”. The specification states “Here ‘radiantly connected’ means that wave energy irradiation received at the target passed through some portion of the scattering field.” This suggests the term “connection” is used by the claim to mean “passage through a scattering field,” while the accepted meaning is “a relationship in which a person, thing, or idea is linked or associated with something else.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 1-16, 18, and 20 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.
The claims recite “establishing in a medium a field of scattering elements in a vicinity of a target”. It is unclear what action is being claimed. A field of scattering elements is an abstract spatial distribution of said elements. Any medium including scattering elements will naturally be in the form of a field in that the elements exist in space therefore will have some spatial distribution. It is therefore unclear what action(s) are deemed to necessary to “establish” such a field. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant intends to claim generating dry fog, based on the following disclosure “As an aside, a more generic term for the artificial creation of scattering elements (dry fog or other) would be a generator. Note that ‘artificial’ is used to distinguish from scattering found in nature, e.g., atmospheric fog or bubbles in a crashing ocean wave. Artificial generators also supply, e.g., powder-type scatterers and bubbles from bubblers or via cavitation, e.g., from ultrasonic transducers or propellors).”
Claims 1-16, 18, and 20 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.
The claims recite “establishing radiant connections of wave energy from the source to the target”. It is unclear what action(s) are being claimed. The specification states “Here ‘radiantly connected’ means that wave energy irradiation received at the target passed through some portion of the scattering field.” Establishing such a radiant connection would therefore seem to mean passing the wave energy through a radiation field. This appears be inherent in the prior steps of forming the field and casting the wave energy into it. Therefore, this limitation will be treated as fulfilled if those steps are met.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 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.
The claims recite “at least one quantitive measurement indicative of indirect irradiation … on a shadowed surface of the target.” It is unclear what measurement is being claimed. The specification provides for measuring a wide variety of parameters, many of which have a relationship to indirect irradiation, such as light intensity change due to scattering, scattering particle concentration, particle or droplet size, humidity and temperature, etc. However, none of these are indicative of indirect irradiation on a shadowed surface of the target. Rather, they are measurements indicative of scattering in general, or of parameters that can affect the scattering.
The specification also provides for measuring the amount of radiation reaching a sensor placed in a shadow, such as using tape to create a shadow on a sensor or using a dosimeter with a shadow geometry, as in the original claim 19, to determine effectiveness of the dry fog. However, such measurements are indicative of indirect irradiation on a shadowed surface of a sensor, not indicative of indirect irradiation on a shadowed surface of the target. Such measurements cannot determine anything about the indirect irradiation of any shadowed surfaces of the target.
Applicant’s remarks do not point any particular passages or figures for support of the new limitations, and the remarks do not elaborate on what they are attempting to claim, only stating that the limitation is not found in the prior arts. Examiner did multiple text searches of the specification in an attempt to find any disclosure of measuring or sensing anything indicative of indirect irradiation on a shadowed surface of the target, but was unable to find any such disclosure. Examiner is at a loss as to how to interpret the limitation and has not treated it on the merits.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 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.
The claims recite “quantitatively measuring … at least one effect” or a device for doing so. It is unclear what “effect” is being measured. An effect implies a cause, and no reference to any cause is present in the claim. Therefore, examiner has no basis for performing any analysis of what effect may be intended.
Claims 1-16, 18, and 20 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.
Claim limitation “quantitatively measuring … at least one effect” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, because the function is indefinite for the reasons discussed above, examiner cannot determine what acts correspond to the claimed measuring step. The limitation has not been treated on the merits.
Claim limitation “measuring devices (for measuring an effect)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, because the function is indefinite for the reasons discussed above, examiner cannot determine what structures correspond to the claimed devices. The limitation has not been treated on the merits.
Claims 1-16, 18, and 20 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.
Claim limitation “measuring devices (for measuring an effect)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, because the function is indefinite for the reasons discussed above, examiner cannot determine what structures correspond to the claimed devices. The limitation has not been treated on the merits.
Claim 19 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 limitation “measuring devices to quantitatively measure at least one effect establishing at least quantitative measurement indicative of indirect irradiation by at least some of the radiant connections of wave energy on a shadowed surface of the target” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, because the function is indefinite for the reasons discussed above, examiner cannot determine what structures correspond to the claimed devices. The limitation has not been treated on the merits.
Claim 19 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 19 attempts to claim an irradiation device as including “a field of scattering elements in a medium, the field in a vicinity of a target”. This is not a feature of the irradiation device, but a field produced by the device. The field is not a structural element of the device or a function of the device but instead a spatial distribution of particles/droplets, which by itself is an abstraction with no connection to the device and not a proper limitation for an apparatus claim. It is suggested applicant return to claiming the structures for generating and/or directing the field.
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 “adjusting one or more operational parameters based on the quantitative measurement.” It is unclear what adjustment process is being claimed. The specification notes that measurements can be used as feedback for adjusting operational parameters, but does not appear to contain any process for determining the adjustments to be made based on any measurement, only a general disclosure of ensuring proper dosage (“In all instances, the feedback can be used to adjust the illuminator(s) and/or the flow characteristics of scattering particles to ensure proper dosage.”). It is therefore unclear how the adjustment is carried out “based on the quantitative measurement.”
Closest Prior Arts of Record
Because examiner is unable to determine how to interpret one of the main limitations of the independent claims, no evaluation of the merits of the claims can be attempted. Therefore, examiner will simply point out that all the understood claim limitations of the independent claims are still found in the previously cited prior arts.
For example, the ‘877 publication discloses an irradiation method, comprising:
establishing in a medium a field of scattering elements in a vicinity of a target (‘In another embodiment, the aerosol in the beam path of UV emitter generated.’);
casting wave energy from a source into at least a portion of the field (‘aerosol in the beam path of UV emitter’);
at least some of the scattering elements scattering at least some of the wave energy, establishing radiant connections of wave energy from the source to the target (‘a radiation-scattering phase is generated or introduced, which directs scattered light or scattered radiation into the shadow areas’).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the independent claims over Daimler, applicant argues that Daimler only discloses placing the scattering phase in the shadow regions and therefore the UV light will never reach it and scatter. Applicant therefore reasons that Daimler has a non-enabling disclosure. Applicant points to a passage of Daimler that states “in the shadow regions of the radiators in the immediate vicinity of the applied UV-curable lacquer,” as support for their position.
Daimler does disclose that the scattering phase/field is included in the shadow region, but does not restrict the phase to only this region. Rather, the scattering field is in most cases directed toward the shadow region such that it travels with or through the light/radiation beam (“In a further embodiment, the aerosol is generated in the beam path of the UV lamp” P 28).
Daimler also discloses an embodiment where the scattering field is generated in the shadow region (“The aerosol can be directed towards the shaded areas or even generated there.” P 10). It is not stated however, that the aerosol remains only in the shadow region, as aerosols travel away from their point of origin at very high speeds, at least for the first few seconds, and the scattering phase will move beyond the shadow region within a few seconds, often in a matter of microseconds, unless barriers or other means prevent this. Daimler likely refers here to a process of generating the aerosols in the shadow region and directing then outward toward the light beam. In any case, the explicit disclosure of a scattering field in the beam path of the UV emitter is not negated by the presence of an additional embodiment that may not include this.
Regarding the rejections of the independent claims over Daimler applicant argues that they can find no disclosure of the claimed a measuring step/device in Daimler.
Because examiner does not know how to interpret this limitation, she cannot comment.
Regarding the 102 rejection of claim 19 over Gray, applicant argues that Gray teaches ensuring direct exposure of every surface of the article to the UV light by rotating the article. Applicant cites a passage from Gray that discloses “rotating and/or moving the article to ensure every surface is exposed to a combination of the light and the medium”.
This argument does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. None of the limitations of claim 19 relate to direct exposure of all the surfaces. Examiner will also note that the cited passage conspicuously does not include the word “direct” or any equivalent.
Although applicant does not state this, they seem to be implying that if direct exposure occurs at every surface during the course of the treatment this somehow negates or prevents indirect radiation reaching a shadowed surface. Even if every surface is exposed to direct light at some point in the rotation, which cannot be assumed, that does not tell us anything about whether scattered light reaches a shadowed surface. It only means that any shadows present move across the surfaces with the rotation, such that different portions of the target constitute the “shadowed surface” at different times.
Regarding the 102 rejection of claim 19 over Gray, applicant argues that they can find no disclosure of the claimed measuring device in Gray.
Because examiner does not know how to interpret this limitation, she cannot comment.
Regarding claim 15, applicant challenges examiner’s taking of Official notice of the fact that methods for isolating scattering elements from impinging on a target are well-known.
According to applicant’s disclosure, isolating at least some of the scattering elements from impinging the target involves placing a barrier between the target surface and the scattering field (“A similar embodiment would be items that are wrapped with UVC transmissive material (e.g., FEP shrink wrap) that maintains isolation (mostly or totally) between a food product and the dry fog.” applicant’s paragraph 235). Alternatively, it can involve using air flow to form gaps between the fog and the target (“there can be gaps of low concentration near the targets due to ambient air flow and/or isolation layers).” Applicant’s paragraph 101).
Examiner provides US 2018/0243458 (Shatalov et al.) as documentary evidence that placing a UV transmissive barrier between a target surface and a UV light source is known in the art of irradiation methods (“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). Because the scattering field of Daimler is travels with the UV light, incorporating such a barrier into Daimler would necessarily isolate the scattering elements from impinging on the target.
Regarding claim 15, applicant argues that it is not understood how isolating the at least some of the scattering elements from impinging the target would maintain the phase in the area between the radiation source and the target for an extended period of time to allow scattering to continue for as long as required.
Preventing the scattering elements from impinging on the target surface would have no significant effect on how long the scattering phase/field is maintained between the source and the target. The scattering field is produced by a jet or atomizer and moves at high speeds; therefore, each individual scattering element only exists in the area between the radiation source and the target for a very brief period of time. The scattering field is maintained by continuously supplying new scattering elements through the nozzle or atomizer for the desired period. Placing a barrier or air gap downstream of this will not change this period and therefore would have no meaningful effect on the length of time the field is maintained in the desired location.
Regarding the 103 rejections over Gray in view of Daimler, applicants argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Gray to irradiate a shadowed surface of the target with indirect radiation for several reasons.
These arguments are moot because applicant has cancelled the limitation requiring irradiation of the shadowed surface of target and replaced it with a limitation relating to measuring. Although the measurement is “indicative of indirect irradiation … on a shadowed surface of the target” such a measurement can occur without any irradiation of the shadowed surface, in which case it will simply output an indication that no indirect wave energy is incident on said shadowed surface.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant argues that they can find no disclosure of the claimed measuring step or device in Gray or Daimler.
Because examiner does not know how to interpret this limitation, she cannot comment.
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 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