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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (EP21187588.5 – Filing Date 07/26/2021) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 01/10/2024, 10/30/2024, and 12/10/2025 have been certified and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The light generating device is configured to generate first device radiation” should read “the light generating device is configured to generate a first device radiation”.
“The microbe dispenser device is configured (i) to provide in a microbic emission mode of the first microbes” should read “The microbe dispenser device is configured to provide a microbic emission mode of the first microbes.” 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“microbe dispenser device” in claim 1 (The specification teaches structure of microbe dispenser device as a “mist dispenser”)
“light generating device” in claim 1 (The specification teaches structure of light generating device as a lamp, a luminaire, a projector device, and a (UV and/or IR) disinfection device);
“input system” in claim 1 (The specification teaches that the system comprises a sensor);
“first device radiation” in claim 1 (The specification teaches a first device radiation with an intensity of 405 nm +/- 5 nm).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11, 13-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “first device radiation” is used in light generating device. It is unclear whether this device radiation has clear structure (“device”) or is referring to a specific spectral power distribution used. For examination purposes, first device radiation will be interpreted to being the spectral power distribution within the range of 405 nm +/- 5 nm. Claims 2-11, 13-15 fail to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim, and therefore are included in this rejection.
Regarding claim 13, the term “predefined target microbiome composition” is unclear regarding what comprises a target microbiome composition. Furthermore, the specification fails to disclose information regarding what comprises a target microbiome composition. For examination purposes, if the control system changes the light generating device in dependence of the microbiome influencing parameter, this will be seen as meeting this claim limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the spectral power" in second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaas (WO 2020254557 A1) (referenced in IDS) in view of Jung et al. (KR 101895039 B1) (referenced in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kaas teaches a lighting system for indoor microbiome management in an animal residence (See annotated FIG. 1), wherein the lighting system comprises a light generating device (lamps - element 4), a control system that controls the light generating device (Page 7, Lines 31—34 – claim 22), microbe dispenser device (spraying nozzles – element 6 (structurally a mist dispenser).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaas fails to teach the following limitations:
Microbe dispenser device is configured to provide a microbic emission mode of the first microbes.
Input system (sensors) configured to receive and/or sense a microbiome influencing parameter and to provide a related input signal to the control system.
Light generating device is configured to generate first device radiation, wherein a spectral power distribution of the first device radiation is selected for promoting persistence of first microbes relative to second microbes, other than the first microbes.
Regarding limitation I, Jung et al. teaches of spray composite lactobacillus by a high pump pressure in a mist form that allows the composite lactobacillus to float in the air in a pen (abstract – Page 2 of MT). Jung et al. further teaches that spraying the lactobacillus allows the bacteria to collect and adsorb the total volatile organic compound (TVOC), which maintains the fresh air in the pen, reduces mortality rate and foul odors from excrement in the pen, and prevent livestock diseases (abstract – Page 2 of MT).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Jung et al.’s teaching of spray composite lactobacillus in mist form in Kaas’ animal residence system because the spraying of lactobacillus microbes allows a reduction of total volatile organic compounds generated in the enclosure, which can reduce mortality rate and foul odors from excrement. This method of improving Kaas’ animal residence system was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Jung et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kaas and Jung et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding limitation II, Jung et al. teaches of sensors (temperature and humidity sensor (element 380)) in the housing – which connects to control panel (element 400) to send a control pattern in accordance with the concentration of volatile organic compounds in the air layer (Page 15 of MT, 1st paragraph). Jung et al. further teaches that the concentration of noxious gas changes depending on height, temperature, humidity or season in the housing 300 (Page 14, 2nd paragraph), as lactobacillus allows the bacterial to collect and adsorb the total volatile organic compound (TVOC), which maintains the fresh air in the pen (abstract – Page 2 of MT). Jung et al. further teaches that the temperature and humidity sensors aid in data collection for treatment using the lactobacillus (Page 16, 3rd and 5th paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Jung et al.’s teaching of temperature and humidity sensors in Kaas’ animal residence system because sensors when tracked against volatile organic compounds allows the appropriate treatment with lactobacillus to be provided. This method of improving Kaas’ animal residence system was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Jung et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kaas and Jung et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding limitation III, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus form a prior art apparatus if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus of the light generating device disclosed by Kaas would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art light generating device disclosed exposes the air to UV light, (UVB/UVA light) (Page 3 – Lines 7-16), and would be structurally capable of generating a first device radiation, wherein a spectral power distribution of the first device radiation is selected for promoting persistence of first microbes relative to second microbes, other than the first microbes.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Furthermore, Jung et al. teaches sensors (temperature and humidity sensor (element 380)) in the housing – which connects to control panel (element 400) to send a control pattern in accordance with the concentration of volatile organic compounds in the air layer (Page 15 of MT, 1st paragraph). Thus, the structure resulting in the combination of the references of claim 1 would encompass a structure of an input system comprising a sensor, wherein the sensor is configured to sense the microbiome influencing parameter (temperature and humidity), and wherein the related input signal comprises a related sensor signal; therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. As addressed in the claim 1 rejection (Limitation III), the light generating device would be structurally capable of promoting persistence of first microbes relative to second microbes. Thus, the combination of the references of claim 1 would encapsulate a spectral power distribution of the first device radiation that promotes growth of the first microbes, and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Furthermore, Kaas teaches that control system may be adapted for managing predetermined light exposure time (Page 5), which represents a dynamic lighting effect of the first device radiation. Thus, the claim is prima facie obvious, as control system is configured to control a dynamic lighting effect.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Furthermore, Jung et al. teaches a microbiome influencing parameter is selected for the presence of first microbes (lactic acid bacterium – Page 5, 1st paragraph of MT provided). Thus, the claim is prima facie obvious, as lactic acid bacterium structurally act as the first microbes in the lighting system.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Furthermore, Jung et al. teaches a microbiome influencing parameter of temperature and relative humidity, which are recorded using sensor (element 380)) in the housing. Thus, the structure resulting in the combination of references of claim 1 would encompass a structure of wherein the microbiome influencing parameter is selected from the group of temperature, relative humidity, moisture level of a floor surface, a light from a source other than the light generating device, ventilation, and a ground cover material in the animal residence. Thus, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Jung et al. teaches that pig manure especially generates odor substances such as ammonia compared to other livestock, and a lot of dust is generated from pigs' activity and feed, so air inside the pig is polluted a lot. (Page 5, 3rd paragraph). Thus, the structure resulting in the combination of references of claim 1 would encompass a structure wherein the microbiome influencing parameter is selected from the type of animal (as ammonia sensors and hydrogen sulfide sensors are used by Jung et al. to track VOCs directly in pig enclosures), and therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Furthermore, Jung et al. teaches the usage of lactobacillus as the microbes used in the microbe dispenser device. Thus, the structure resulting in the combination of references of claim 1 would encompass a structure of wherein lactobacillus is chosen in the lighting system – and therefore, the claim is obvious.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Kaas specifically teaches that the animals may be optionally exposed to UVA light (Page 4 – Lines 6-10), as UVA light falls within the range of 315 to 400 nm. It has been established that when the claimed ranges (spectral power has an intensity at one or more wavelength selected from a first wavelength range of 405 +/- 5 nm) overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (315 to 400 nm), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Thus, the claim is rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Kaas specifically teaches spraying fluid on the animals prior to exposing the animals to light with visible light and UV light (Page 4, 2nd paragraph). Thus, the claim is rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Kaas specifically teaches that lighting system is configured to provide disinfection radiation (through exposure to polychromatic light (comprising UVB and visible light) to the animals – abstract), wherein UVB is specifically in the range of 280 to 315 nm (Page 9 – Lines 22-24). It has been established that when the claimed ranges (UV radiation having one or more wavelengths selected from the wavelength range of 100 - 380 nm) overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (280 to 315 nm), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Thus, the claim is rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Kaas specifically teaches that light generating device (lamp – element 4) and its emission effect changes depending on the size of the animal (microbiome influencing parameter) (Page 5). Control system manages a predetermined light exposure time (Page 5). Thus, the claim of a control system configured to control the light generating device in dependence of the microbiome influencing parameter is rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Kaas specifically teaches the usage of lamp (element 4) in the system employed. Thus, the claim is prima facie obvious, as a lamp is one of the lightning devices listed in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kaas teaches the lighting system according to claim 1. Kaas specifically teaches an animal residence (FIG. 1), wherein the lighting system is configured to control the indoor microbiome in the animal residence (abstract – reducing microbial pressure in animal farm production facility).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIUS FRANCIS YOH whose telephone number is (571)272-3489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/J.F.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights