DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 12 and 13 recite the limitation “and having exposure times are four seconds or less.” Examiner recommends correction to “and having exposure times that are four seconds or less.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 4, line 8, recites “a means of locomotion for moving the device,” and is being interpreted under 112(f). The “means of locomotion” is understood to be element 4 as per page 9, lines 9-20, of the specification.
3-prong analysis:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function; “a means of locomotion.”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, “for moving the device.”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; “compression means” is not modified by sufficient structure in the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaloski (US 5040329 A, previously cited by Applicant 09/08/2022) in view of Urban (US 20180255710 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Michaloski discloses a method of eliminating a pathogen by delivering light pulses to plant material (Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 4, “A principle object of the present invention is to provide environmentally safe means for eradicating harmful viticultural microorganisms that cause, in particular, fungal diseases both by the direct effect of UV energy in the germicidal band upon pathogenic microbes, and by the indirect suppression of pathogens by stimulation of phytoalexin synthesis”), the method comprising:
installing a mobile light exposure device comprising:
a first module for emitting one or more light pulses, comprising at least one light processing panel (lamp/reflector assemblies 9, 10; Fig. 1);
a second module for adjusting, the optical power density of a treatment panel, remotely or on the device (Col. 5, lines 39-44, “The preferred embodiment controls the plant irradiation dosage by varying the radiation output of the light source as a function of movement speed, but movement speed could be varied using a constant output light source or both speed and radiation source output could be varied”); and
a means of locomotion for moving the device (Fig. 2 shows tractor is a means of locomotion);
moving said device through a plantation combined with direct exposure of the said plant material to the light pulses (Col. 2, lines 5-7, “It is another object of the invention to provide such a means suitable for use in vineyards and fields using a tractor or other driving devices”);
wherein the light pulses have wavelengths that are identical or different and are between 200 nm and 280 nm (Fig. 1 shows direct exposure of plant material to light from device; Col. 4, lines 13-15; Col. 5, lines 24, and 25); and
Michaloski, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the optical power density of the treatment panel allows a radiation dose of between 250 J/m² and 2000 J/m² to be applied to a surface of the plant material, having exposure times are four seconds or less, and wherein the radiation dose delivered in the form of the light pulses is between 250 J/m2 and 2000 J/m2 to the surface of the plant material and the radiation dose eliminates the pathogen, thereby disinfecting the surface of the plant material.
Urban is in the field of plant lighting and teaches wherein the optical power density of the treatment panel allows a radiation dose of between 250 J/m² and 2000 J/m² to be applied to a surface of the plant material, in that the exposure times are identical or different and total four seconds or less, and wherein the radiation dose delivered in the form of the light pulses is between 250 J/m2 and 2000 J/m2 to the surface of the plant material and the radiation dose eliminates the pathogen, thereby disinfecting the surface of the plant material (¶ 0086, “Pulsed light is generated with a xenon lamp. When the Xenon is excited by electrical discharges, it emits a light covering the visible spectrum but with more intense light emission in the blue and UV. The flashes used were generated by submitting an electric shock of 2500 volts during 300 microseconds. The exposure to UV-C is performed at a dose of 0.1 J/cm2 [that is 1 kJ/m2] [10% of UV-C in the total spectrum of the lamp],” ¶ 0009, “UV-C [Ultraviolet C] light is also known for disinfecting, sterilizing water or surfaces or for treating post-harvest plant materials such as harvested fruits and vegetables, which have been removed from the living/growing/photosynthesizing plants”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Michaloski such that the optical power density of the treatment panel allows a radiation dose of between 250 J/m² and 2000 J/m² to be applied to a surface of the plant material, and having exposure times are four seconds or less, in that the exposure times are identical or different and total four seconds or less, and wherein the radiation dose delivered in the form of the light pulses is between 250 J/m2 and 2000 J/m2 to the surface of the plant material and the radiation dose eliminates the pathogen, thereby disinfecting the surface of the plant material, as taught by the lamp and lighting control of Urban. The light emission would stimulate the resistance of plants to biotic stress by radiation exposure, which would further improve overall plant resilience against environmental threats. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Michaloski in view of Urban discloses the method of claim 4.
Michaloski discloses wherein said plant material is a plant, a fruit, a vegetable, a grain, a vitro plant, a tuber, or any other part of a plant (Fig. 1 shows plants on trellises 33).
Regarding claim 6, Michaloski in view of Urban discloses the method of claim 4.
Michaloski discloses wherein the pathogen is selected from the group consisting of bacteria, viruses, fungi, oomycetes, insects, mites, nematodes, and combinations thereof (Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 4; Fig. 5 shows a graph depicting the lethal germicidal action of Ultraviolet energy in the germicidal band on apple and grape seedlings infected with Powdery Mildew fungi).
Regarding claim 8, Michaloski in view of Urban discloses the method of claim 4.
Michaloski discloses wherein the plant material is selected from a group consisting of strawberry, tomato, rose, cucumber, red berries, cannabis, vine, asparagus, potato, grass, and apple (vine 34; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Michaloski in view of Urban discloses the method of claim 4.
Michaloski discloses wherein the pathogen is responsible for a cryptogamic disease (Col. 1, lines 16-25, “The infection of green tissue, flower clusters and buds by spores results in fungal diseases common to the grape family and most agricultural crops. When spore infection occurs conidia are produced and the disease spreads rapidly throughout the vineyard. The spread of disease is enhanced if the combination of temperature, leaf wetness and time are satisfied. Some of the fungal diseases that attack grapes in particular are: [1] Powdery Mildew, [2] Downey Mildew, [3] Black Rot, [4] Phomopsis Cane and Leaf Spot, [5] Eutypa Dieback”).
Regarding claim 11, Michaloski in view of Urban discloses the method of claim 4, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the exposure times are two seconds or less (Urban; ¶ 0086).
Regarding claim 12, Michaloski in view of Urban discloses the method of claim 4.
Michaloski discloses wherein the light pulses delivered to the plant material have the same or different wavelengths between 220 nm and 260 nm (Col. 4, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 13, Michaloski in view of Urban discloses the method of claim 4, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the radiation dose delivered in the form of light pulses to the said plant material is between 500 J/m² and 1500 J/m² on the surface of the plant material (Urban; ¶ 0086).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 2 that “Urban, on the other hand, discloses UV-C parameters within the claimed range, but does not aim at disinfection. Instead, Urban is directed to stimulating a plant’s internal defense mechanism through low-dose, localized UV-C exposure. The objective in Urban is immunological priming, not eradication of pathogens. The modes of action in Michaloski and Urban are entirely distinct from one another,” and on page 3 that “Urban contains no data or suggestion that its UV-C parameters are effective in pathogen elimination. Its teachings are unrelated to antimicrobial effects,” the Examiner submits that Urban teaches the elimination of pathogens through UV-C light exposure in ¶ 0009.
Regarding the argument on pages 2 and 3 that “Michaloski targets pathogen elimination. Urban aims to activate plant defenses. The POSITA, when seeking to improve Michaloski’s approach to UV disinfection, would not look to Urban, which addresses an unrelated biological mechanism. Different Results and Methods: Urban does not involve uniform exposure of plant surfaces or mobile application. The POSITA would not derive from Urban the idea of delivering full-surface disinfection UV-C doses in ≤ 4 seconds in order to modify Michaloski as such,” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine exists in Urban, as the lamp and lighting control of Urban would stimulate the resistance of plants to biotic stress by radiation exposure, which would further improve overall plant resilience of the method of Michaloski against environmental threats. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Urban when seeking to improve Michaloski’s UV plant treatment, as both Micholoski and Urban are in the same field of plant treatment using ultraviolet lighting.
Regarding the argument on page 3 that “Even if a POSITA were to combine the teachings of Michaloski and Urban, the claimed invention achieves a surprising and non-obvious result: full-surface disinfection of plants with no phytotoxic damage, using relatively high doses and short exposure times. This effect is counterintuitive, as one would expect either: that the dose would be insufficient to destroy pathogens if exposure time is too short; or that the dose would damage the plant tissue,” the Examiner submits that there is no evidence to support the speculation that providing the lamp and lighting control of Urban would result in the dose being insufficient to destroy pathogens if exposure time is too short, or that the dose would damage the plant tissue. On the contrary, Urban teaches such that the optical power density of the treatment panel allows a radiation dose of between 250 J/m² and 2000 J/m² to be applied to a surface of the plant material, having exposure times are four seconds or less, and wherein the radiation dose delivered in the form of the light pulses is between 250 J/m2 and 2000 J/m2 to the surface of the plant material and the radiation dose eliminates the pathogen, thereby disinfecting the surface of the plant material, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Ngo et al., US 10434208 B1, discusses an integrated disinfection system.
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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642