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
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karpinski, et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0255150 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Karpinski discloses a method for the antifungal treatment of a turf, comprising a step consisting in applying blue light on said turf (paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 2, Karpinski discloses wherein the wavelength of the blue light is comprised between 380 and 500 nm (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Karpinski discloses wherein the blue light is applied so that the luminous flux per unit area of the turf is comprised between 20 and 50 W/cm^2 (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 4, Karpinski discloses wherein the blue light is applied for a time period comprised between 0.3 seconds and 1 hour 29 minutes (paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 5, Karpinski discloses wherein the blue light is applied during the day and/or during the night (it is always either day or night, therefore the claim does not further limit its parent claim).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Karpinski discloses wherein the blue light is applied at a frequency of 1 to 60 application(s) per month, over one or several days, consecutive or not, over a period which could range up to 12 months or more (paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 7, Karpinski discloses wherein the blue light is applied by means of light source(s) selected from the group constituted by LEDs and OLEDs (paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 8, Karpinski discloses wherein the light source(s) are arranged on a support tool, automated or not (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the particular species of the fungi does not limit the claimed method, as it neither adds a step nor does it modify an existing step.
Regarding claim 10, the particular type of turf that the method is performed upon does not limit the claimed method, as it neither adds a step nor does it modify an existing step.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites only a result of the method, and does not further limit the steps of the claimed method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument is that Karpinski does not teach that the purpose of applying the blue light is to effect an antifungal treatment, nor that the blue light is contemplated as being applied to a “turf.” (Reply, pp. 2-3)
Addressing the first part of the argument, that the purpose of applying the blue light is to perform an antifungal treatment, this statement of the purpose of the method is a preamble statement reciting purpose of intended use, which is not considered a claim limitation. When a preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp, LLC, 962 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Claim 1 recites “A method for the antifungal treatment of a turf, comprising a step consisting in applying blue light on said turf.” The “antifungal treatment” language in the claim is recited in the preamble and merely states that the purpose or intended use of the invention is for antifungal treatment. This statement of purpose does not impose any limitation on the claimed method, which is performed by simply applying blue light on the turf. Because the preamble statement “A method for the antifungal treatment of a turf” is a non-limiting statement of purpose or intended use, and not given patentable weight in claim construction.
As to the second part of the argument, that Karpinski does not teach a “turf,” the argument is unpersuasive because the plants to which Karpinski discloses applying blue light satisfy the Applicant’s own definition of a “turf.” The Examiner understands the meaning of “turf” to be “any endemic or sown surface comprising a high density of fine herbs selected, essentially from among grasses . . . For example, it may consist of ornamental or aggregate turf in parks and gardens, or sports turf…” (Specification, p. 2 line 35-p. 3 line 5). The “plants cultivated in indoor growing systems” disclosed by Karpinski satisfy this definition because plants in a greenhouse are grown on sown surfaces (the soil in which the seeds are planted), and “fine herbs” are well-known to be among the types of plants that are cultivated in indoor growing systems. Furthermore, the Applicant’s definition of “turf” recites as an example, turf in “gardens.” An indoor growing system is a type of garden. Since the plants disclosed by Karpinski fit the Applicant’s own definition of “turf,” the anticipation rejection under Karpinski is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL P MASKELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10A-6P.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MICHAEL MASKELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878 16 October 2026
Prosecution Insights