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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of amendments to claim 3, the objection to the claim is withdrawn. In light of amendments to claim 4, 7, and 8, the rejection of claims 4, 7, and 8 under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant's remarks, see page 8, that Gomez describes a system and a method for blocking, etc. Gomez discloses the present invention is also directed to a system and method for settling the particulate material present (pars [0060]-[0071]).
In response to applicant's argument, see page 9, that Gomez fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a single functional antenna”) are not recited in rejected claim 1; instead, claim 1 recites the amended limitations “a transmitting antenna” in line 5 and “the transmitting antenna” in lines 7, 11, and 12. Claims are interpreted in light of the specification; however, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It has also come to the examiner’s attention that applicant’s appear to have disclosed their invention in Mudur, Radio Waves to Beat Pollution? Scientists are Surprised, The Telegraph Online, 16 October 2018, and Do Radio Waves or microwaves accelerate Particulate Matter?, ResearchGate, 10 November 2018. It appears that applicant’s disclose that a single omni-directional antenna is used to generate radio waves in a pulsed sequence.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising” in line 2 of the preamble. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). ("The transition ‘comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps."); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Comprising" is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 803 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948). See MPEP § 2111.03.
In response to applicant's argument, see pages 9-11, regarding the amended phrase, “wherein the generating the pulsed radiofrequency signal depends on one or more of an ambient temperature and a relative humidity at a geographical location of the device,” is considered an intended use. This type of limitation, i.e., an intended use, in process (or method) claims, must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In this particular case, the method step “periodically interrupting” fails to result in a manipulative difference “wherein the generating the pulsed radiofrequency signal depends on one or more of an ambient temperature and a relative humidity at a geographical location of the device.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, features upon which applicant relies i.e., “adjustment to the pulsed signals based on environmental factors (such as an ambient temperature and relative humidity” nor ”dynamic adjustment of the pulsed signals based on environmental factors enhances the effectiveness of particulate matter agglomeration and precipitation” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the rejections of the remaining claims are maintained here within.
Rule 105 Request
It has come to the attention of the Office that the following item (hereafter “the Prior Device”) was publicly on sale and/or publicly used and was disclosed in:
Mudur, Radio Waves to Beat Pollution? Scientists are Surprised, The Telegraph Online, 16 October 2018, and Do Radio Waves or microwaves accelerate Particulate Matter?, ResearchGate, 10 November 2018, which is prior to the effective filing date of the above-referenced application (2 June 2020). The Prior Device appears to disclose features that correspond to claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 8 of the pending application and therefore may be anticipatory under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or render the claims unpatentable in light of the prior disclosure. The Mudur article notes that the device was on sale in 2018: “But Shrikant sola, a cardiologist who is the co-founder and director of Devic, said the company decided to begin selling the UHF technology ahead of scientific publications because the results were promising and people could benefit from the devices.” In light of these articles, it is unclear how the current application differs from the device on sale/in public use in 2018?
Please help clarify and provide a detailed response and supporting evidence addressing how the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the Prior Device.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the method step of generating.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 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 1 recites the phrase "depends on one or more of an ambient temperature and a relative humidity at a geographical location of the device" in lines 9-10. The claim does not define what is meant by the phrase, and therefore is ambiguous. The question raised is: how does the method step of generating a radiofrequency signal of a predetermined frequency depend on one or more of an ambient temperature and a relative humidity at a geographical location of the device? Claim 1 is indefinite, and therefore, claims 1-4 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomez (US 20240033676 A1).
For claim 1, Gomez discloses a method for reducing a proportion of particulate matter suspended in air (Abstract; pars [0012], [0015], [0019], [0134]-[0140], [0150]-[0155]), the method performed by a device, and the method comprising:
generating, by a signal generator, a radiofrequency signal of a predetermined frequency (pars [0117]), [0141]);
power amplifying, by a power amplifier, the generated radiofrequency signal for feeding to a transmitting antenna for radiating as an electromagnetic wave (pars [0115], [0121], [0135], [0140]);
periodically interrupting, by a pulse width modulator, the power amplified radiofrequency signal from reaching the transmitting antenna (pars [0118]-[0120], [0137]-[0139]), for a predetermined duration, for generating a pulsed radiofrequency signal (par [0117]), wherein the generating pulsed radiofrequency signal depends on one or more of an ambient temperature and a relative humidity at a geographical location of the device (pars [0128], [0175], [0177]; NOTE: par [0128] “It is important to consider that the signal according to the present invention is carried in a medium containing particulate matter particles PM<100 μm. Any particle at a temperature different from absolute zero possesses a thermal energy that manifests itself as random motion or thermal agitation. In this case, aerosols are known to be colloids, colloids have charge, and charges are electrons. If the particles have charge as a product of electrons or dipoles, their random motion generates a random current. If this random current occurs in a conductive medium, a voltage known as “thermal noise or resistance noise” is produced. As expected, because of the wave-particle duality, there is thermal noise associated with electromagnetic radiation from the sun on the one hand, and noise caused by particulate matter on the other. For this, it is initiated by transmitting with one power (emission energy) and received with another or the same emission energy.”); and
feeding the pulsed radiofrequency signal to the transmitting antenna and radiating pulsed electromagnetic radiation into the air by the transmitting antenna (pars [0012]-[0015]). Also see above Response to Arguments section.
For claim 2, as interpreted, Gomez is relied upon as indicated above. Gomez further discloses wherein the frequency lies in a radiofrequency range (pars [0117]).
For claim 5, Gomez discloses a device for reducing a proportion of particulate matter suspended in air, the device comprising:
a signal generator for generating a radiofrequency signal of a predetermined frequency (par [0141]);
a power amplifier for power amplifying the generated radiofrequency signal for feeding to a transmitting antenna for radiating an electromagnetic wave (pars [0115], [0121], [0135], [0140]); and
a pulse width modulator for periodically interrupting the power amplified radiofrequency signal from reaching the transmitting antenna (pars [0118]-[0120], [0137]-[0139]) for generating pulsed radiofrequency signal, wherein the pulsed radiofrequency signal is based on one or more of an ambient temperature and a relative humidity at a geographical location of the device, wherein the transmittal antenna is for radiating pulsed electromagnetic radiation into the air (pars [0012]-[0015], [0118], [0128] “Any particle at a temperature different from absolute zero possesses a thermal energy that manifests itself as random motion or thermal agitation. In this case, aerosols are known to be colloids, colloids have charge, and charges are electrons. If the particles have charge as a product of electrons or dipoles, their random motion generates a random current. If this random current occurs in a conductive medium, a voltage known as “thermal noise or resistance noise” is produced. As expected, because of the wave-particle duality, there is thermal noise associated with electromagnetic radiation from the sun on the one hand, and noise caused by particulate matter on the other. For this, it is initiated by transmitting with one power (emission energy) and received with another or the same emission energy.”). Nonetheless, the phrase “for generating pulsed radiofrequency signal, wherein the pulsed radiofrequency signal is based on one or more of an ambient temperature and a relative humidity at a geographical location of the device, wherein the transmittal antenna is for radiating pulsed electromagnetic radiation into the air” is considered intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Also see above Response to Arguments section.
For claim 8, as interpreted, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Gomez discloses the device of claim 5 and a system for managing the reducing of a proportion of particulate matter suspended in air, the system comprising:
a remote server communicatively coupled to the device (pars [0013]-[0014]), the remote server comprising;
data and instructions configured for one or more of (pars [0121], [0134], [0148], [0156], [0166]):
monitoring a state of health of the device, and
communicating operating instructions to the device for operating the device depending on one or more factors selected from a group of factors, comprising the geographical location of the device, a current atmospheric condition at the geographical location of the device, an estimate of pollution characteristics at the geographical location and one or more inputs provided by a user of the device (pars [0013], [0014], [0121], [0139]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (US 20240033676 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
For claim 4, the teaching of Gomez is relied upon as indicated above. Gomez discloses a predetermined frequency of 300 MHz to 3 GHz range (par [0117]). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the invention of Gomez discloses the predetermined frequency between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz because Gomez teaches that signal transmission frequency is dependent upon the area where the system is installed; the claimed range is within the disclosed teaching of Gomez. MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gomez, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above.
For claims 3 and 7, the teaching of Gomez is set forth above. Gomez discloses a portion of the predetermined frequency which overlaps within the claimed frequency range of 800 MHz to 5 GHz for claim 3 and 7. Gomez teaches that the digital data transfer rate at this disclosed frequency range helps to maintain a secure and stable link (par [0117]; whereas, frequency is variable 300 MHz to 3 GHz and dependent upon the area where the apparatus is installed for use).
However, the portion of the claimed frequency >3GHz to 8GHz (note Gomez teaches 300MHz to 3GHz) is outside of the specific range disclosed in Gomez. This portion falls within the SHF (Super High Frequency) range. Wireless and encrypted data are transmitted at SHF ranges.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize the range portion outside of the range disclosed in Gomez, the SHF range, for high-speed transmission due to the ability to support larger bandwidths and high rates with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 October 15, 2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776