DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on December 29, 2023. Claims 1-13 are presented for review in the preliminary amendment to the claims also dated on December 29, 2023, with claim 1 as the sole independent.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on December 29, 2023, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (two (2) pages) were received on December 29, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following two reasons. First, the abstract should be generally 150 words or less. However, the current abstract is approximately 210 words. Therefore, the abstract should be shortened and re-drafted to be more concise, geared toward the “inventive concept” as found in the original specification, drawings, and claims. Further, the typo “intensified eveb more” is found, which should be replaced by “even” (see line 11). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: first, it is noted that all reference numbers found in parenthesis ( ) should be removed, as it is not typical US PTO practice to list the reference numbers from the drawings in the claims. Further, the claims 1-13 are rife with typos, minor informalities, and awkward language, which is most likely due to a translation from a foreign language (German) into English. Therefore, Applicant is respectfully requested to carefully review all claims 1-13 for typos and make corrections as necessary. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, the following objectionable claim language is noted:
-Independent Claim 1: In the preamble, the phrase “cross-section, walls being mirrored…” should be re-drafted to first identify these structural “walls” features. Of note is that the terms “light”, “light rays”, “the light”, “the rays”, etc. should be listed consistently as a singular identifiable feature without changing terms throughout the claim(s) (note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below). Also of note is that “walls”, “the walls”, “mirrored conduit walls”, “other walls”, etc. should be clarified for consistency (note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below). Noting the phrases “tends to send the rays” and “more or less normally” are awkward in English and should be re-drafted. Noting the terms “they” and “it” (section (b)) should not be used as the clear structural terms should be used (the “light rays” or “the conduit”). Finally, the term “special design or geometry” should be re-drafted with those specific structural features as part of the “mirrored conduit walls” (as in the specification) to flow with better language in the claim.
-Dependent Claims 2-13: these claims include many awkward phrases and language, typos, and informalities in the English language. Also note that many additional 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are listed below. Applicant’s cooperation is required to carefully and thoroughly review all dependent claims 2-13 and make all corrections to these claims.
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 1-13 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 1 is rejected below, as the sole independent claim, while dependent claims 2-13 are rejected at least as being dependent from claim 1. However, further “claim rejections” are noted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to dependent claims themselves in the ensuing paragraphs.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "amplifying light”, “light rays”, “the light”, “the rays”, “the light rays” in the preamble and/or claim body. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Each term for the generic optical signal (light being amplified, from the “regularly arranged light sources”), or reflected light (if this light is different from the input light after reflection) should be clearly identified with singular terminology, and this terminology must be clearly delineated from each other during the entire claim. Further regarding antecedent basis issues, the same deficiency in clarity is lacking with “walls” (never defined in the preamble / claim body), “the walls”, “mirrored conduit walls”, “other walls”, for identification of the wall(s) features in the claims. Additionally, the phrases “from which they come” and “can leave it” also lack proper identification and antecedent basis. Terms such as “it” or “they” should not be used in a US Patent Claim (note the “Claim Objections” above). For these combined reasons, independent claim 1 lacks proper antecedent basis under the requirements of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Additionally, independent claim 1, the phrase “more or less normally” is a relative frame of reference that does not provide clarity of scope (metes-and-bounds). What is the scope of “more or less” to be “normal” for reflection of light rays? Both terms are frames-of-reference and when added together create even more indefiniteness of the terms. In the same vein, the phrase “reaches significantly high values” and “many times over” (in terms of exceeding the radiation intensity), in combination (section (c)), are also unclear frames-of references. Claim 1 is rejected again for similar reasons as above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as a whole.
Dependent claims 2-13 also include features that are inconsistently used and rejectable further under lack of antecedent basis, or generally being indefinitely drafted (frames-of-reference), under 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
-Claim 2: “a first beam” (in comparison to the many “light” features in claim 1), “like rays”, “diverging rays”, and “a beam”; “the walls” and “the wall”; the “mirror surface”, “a double mirror pair”, and the “other half of the double mirror pair”; the term “very close to it” (frame of reference); the term “they go” is used twice; the “the walls” term is used.
-Claim 3: the term “suitable” is improper and vague/indefinite. What is suitable? The term “its radiation” is improper and lacks proper antecedent basis. Also, which “mirrors” are being referred, those in claim 3, or the mirrored reflections in claim 1? The phrase “through a breakthrough of small spatial extent” is unclear as a frame of reference and does not clearly identify the claim scope. The “inner wall side”, “the walls”, “a distance between the wall” and “the wall” terms (in section (c)) lack proper antecedent basis.
-Claim 4: the phrase “approximately rectangular and polygonal or even partially rounded cross section” must be reviewed and re-drafted as this yields unclear scope. Also, the term “approximately retained” is an unclear frame of reference.
-Claim 5: the term “all pairs of mirrors” is not found in claim 3 and should be clarified, for which “all” refers to; and “such mirror coatings” is also unclear. Also in these claims, the phrase “relatively very small” is an unclear frame of reference. Additionally, the term “primarily used” is unclear and appears optional (condition; “if”). Finally, the phrase “leads to easy production” is an unclear frame of reference which yields indefinite claim scope under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). -Claim 6: the phrase “to achieve effective disinfection with the aid of one or a few weak UV light sources” includes at least two relative frames of reference, which do not clearly and distinctly claim the scope of each dependent claim.
-Claim 7: the term “suitable” is improper and vague/indefinite. What is suitable? The term “its radiation” is improper and lacks proper antecedent basis. Also, which “mirrors” are being referred, those in claim 3, or the mirrored reflections in claim 1? The phrase “through a breakthrough of small spatial extent” is unclear as a frame of reference and does not clearly identify the claim scope. The “inner wall side”, “the walls”, “a distance between the wall” and “the wall” terms (in section (c)) lack proper antecedent basis.
-Claims 8-9: the term “pairs of mirrors” is not found in claim 3 and should be clarified, for which “all” refers to; and “such mirror coatings” is also unclear. Also in these claims, the phrase “relatively very small” is an unclear frame of reference. Additionally, the term “primarily used” is unclear and appears optional (condition; “if”). Finally, the phrase “leads to easy production” is an unclear frame of reference which yields indefinite claim scope under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
-Claims 10-13: the phrase “to achieve effective disinfection with the aid of one or a few weak UV light sources” includes at least two relative frames of reference, which do not clearly and distinctly claim the scope of each dependent claim.
Based on the overall indefiniteness of the independent claim 1, and all dependent claims 2-13, the Examiner can only concisely and efficiently examine independent claim 1’s structure, to the best of the Examiner’s ability.
Conclusion
Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested to review the claims 1-13 and specification with a professional having skill in U.S. Patent practice, as the large number of informalities (“Claim Objections”) and the mostly indefinite claim language is found throughout the current application.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A-D, N, and O, which pertain to the state of the art of hollow light conduits/tubes that used reflections as part of the structural design of the interior walls.
Based on the large number features that create indefiniteness, the Examiner has nonetheless attempted to identify “Prior Art” that may either anticipate, or make reasonably obvious, such combination of features as found in independent claim 1. However, there is no prior art found in the current record that would either anticipate or make reasonably obvious such a combination, based on the context of this claim in view of the original specification and drawings (Figs. 1-2). However, the Examiner respectfully notes that all presented features and operations as originally included as part of claim 1 should remain, and not broadened out in any way.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 December 3, 2025