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 Interpretation
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, corresponding to claims 20-26 in the reply filed on August 7th, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 27-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 24 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.
More specifically, the term “small” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prohaska et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0218791).
Prohaska discloses a device comprising:
At least one UV radiation source (51 and/or “UV radiator unit”) configured to emit radiation in a range of ultraviolet wavelengths (paragraphs 94 & 112); and
A beam-shaping and collimating optics (54/55) configured to shape the radiation to a UV beam at least approximately collimated in at least one dimension, wherein a beam angle, defined as an angle to an optical axis of the UV beam produces a collimated beam (paragraphs 95-102). Prohaska does not appear to disclose whether or not the beam angle includes 99% of a radiant flux being smaller than 2°; but readily notes that the angles outside of the collimated region are screened and removed, and the thickness and materials utilized to create (the ultimately beam angle or lack thereof) disclosed are preferred values and based off economic and ergonomic considerations that one of ordinary skill would optimize (paragraphs 95 & 96). As such, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide 99% of the radiant flux of the beam angle to be smaller than 2° in order to produce an appropriate collimated beam that focuses said radiation to produce the desired intensity in order to ensure contaminants do not pass through and are killed by the disclosed UV decontaminating wall between two different areas for a particular application and particular setting; as such is considered a result effective variable to one of ordinary skill that would be optimized during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claim 20 is not patentable over Prohaska.
Regarding claims 21 & 22, Prohaska continues to disclose that the UV radiation source (51 and/or “UV radiator unit”) and the beam-shaping and collimating optics (54/55) are further configured to at least approximately collimate the radiation in a first direction of space (i.e., thickness) perpendicular to a main direction of the UV beam (i.e., length), and at least approximately collimate the radiation in a second direction (i.e., width) of space perpendicular to the first direction of space (i.e., width) to the main direction of the UV beam (i.e., length) as set forth in paragraphs 21, 92, 96, 114 & 117.
With respect to claim 23, the reference further discloses that the UV radiation source (51 and/or “UV radiator unit”) and the beam-shaping and collimating optics (54/55) are further configured to shape the UV beam to have a wide-angle distribution with respect to a second direction of space (i.e., width), perpendicular to the first direction of space (i.e., thickness) and to the main direction of the UV beam (i.e., length) as set forth in paragraphs 21, 32 and 114.
Concerning claim 24, Prohaska discloses that the UV radiation source is a source that has a small etendue (Figures 3-5, 8-11 and 13-15).
Regarding claim 25, Prohaska also discloses that the geometrical dimensions of an emitting area of the UV radiation source is smaller than 2 mm in at least one direction (paragraph 92).
With respect to claim 26, Prohaska continues to disclose that the beam shaping and collimating optics comprises at least one reflector (paragraphs 95 & 96).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights