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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1, 2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 16) in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified common features between Group I and Group II are too narrow, and both groups are linked by the same overacting technical contribution over Kaler, i.e., using radar-derived information to construct or predict UV-C reflection information for safe UV-C activation. This is not found persuasive. Although both inventions are directed to predict UVC reflection conditions from radar information, invention I and II are directed to different approaches to solve this problem. Invention I use a model-based transformation, in which a radar image is transformed into a UVC light reflection image based on the different wavelengths of the radar and UVC radiations. Invention II instead uses an empirical correlation approach, in which actual UVC reflection data are measured by UVC sensors during a reference condition, spatially correlated with the corresponding radar image, and that correlation information is later used with radar data to construct the probing image. Thus, invention I predicts UVC reflection through wavelength-based conversion, whereas invention II derives the radar-to-UV relationship from actual paired radar and UV-C measurement, and thus they do not share a single inventive concept.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to: the breadth of the claims; the nature of the invention; the state of the prior art; the level of one of ordinary skill; the level of predictability in the art; the amount of direction provided by the inventor; the existence of working examples; and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In the instant matter, upon consideration of the evidence related to these factors, and based on the evidence as a whole, claims 1, 2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 16 are found to lack enablement. Particularly, independent claim 1 requires a transformation function configured to “transform a radar image constructed from radar sensor signals to an an UV-C light reflection image,” wherein the transformation is “dependent on a wavelength of EM-radiation emitted from the radar sensors and a wavelength of EM-radiation emitted from the one or more UV- C light sources.” Claim 1 further requires both the reference UVC light reflection image and the proving UVC light reflection image to be transformed from respective radar image. Independent claim 8 recites corresponding method limitations and independent claim 12 recites corresponding non-transitory medium limitations. These limitations refer to the same radar-to-UVC transformation and will be treated together herein.
Breadth of the claims/the amount of direction provided by the inventor
The breadth of claim 1 encompasses transforming a radar image into a UVC light reflection image based on the respective wavelengths of the radar radiation and the UVC radiation. The claim does not limit the transformation to any particular radar frequency, UVC wavelength, transformation model, mathematical relationship, training technique, calibration procedure, material database, or other mechanism by which radar reflection information is converted into UVC reflection information. Thus, the claims broadly encompass any transformation capable of producing the claimed UVC reflection image from radar image data based on respective wavelengths. The specification recognizes that this transformation is necessary because radar and UVC radiation do not exhibit the same reflection behavior. Specially, the specification explains that radar signals are in the mmWave or UWB range, whereas UVC light is in approximately the 100-300 nm range, and that the difference in wavelength causes reflection behavior, including the reflection coefficient of a given material, to differ. However, after identifying this problem, the specification provides only general statements regarding the desired transformation. The specification states that, by knowing what material is present at a surface, reflection coefficients for different wavelengths may be obtained, for example, from a lookup table, and thereafter “a transform” from the radar image to the UVC reflection image can be made. The specification further provides an expression in which a radar reflection matrix is multiplied by a transformation matrix C to produce the UVC reflection image, and similarly uses a transformation matrix C’ for the probing image. However, the disclosure does not explain how transformation C or C’ is obtained or constructed from the radar wavelength, UVC wavelength, radar reflection data, or other disclosed information, merely stating that “UVC reflection image = C * radar reflection image,” and does not provide the information necessary to determine the values contained in C that would actually convert measured radar reflections into the corresponding UVC reflections. Likewise, stating that reflection coefficients at different wavelengths may be obtained from a lookup table does not explain how those coefficients are used to transform a spatial radar reflection image into the claimed UVC reflection image. For example, the specification does not explain how a radar reflection value at a particular spatial location is converted into a predicted UVC reflection value at that location, how reflected radiation propagating from one surface to another is treated, or how differences in reflection behavior caused by the extremely different radar and UVC wavelengths are incorporated into the matric C.
Thus, the disclosure essentially identifies the input (a radar image), identifies the desired output (a UVC reflection image), and names an intermediate mathematical object (transformation matrix C), but provides no substantial teaching for deriving the relationship that converts the input into the claimed output.
Claims 2 and 9 further illustrates the lack of guidance. These claims require determining material properties of surfaces from radar sensor signals and making the transformation further dependent upon the determined material properties. The specification states generally that material properties may be determined from properties of transmitted radar pulses, received reflections, and time-response profile. However, it again provides no algorithm, relationship, criteria, working example, or other instruction showing how those radar measurements actually yield the claimed material properties.
Accordingly, the claims are broad while the direction supplied by the specification concerning the essential radar-to-UVC transformation is minimal. This weights against enablement.
Nature of the invention; state of the prior art; level of ordinary skill; predictability on the art, existence of working examples
The closet technical field is electromagnetic reflectance characterization across different wavelengths ranges. The prior art shows that reflected response can vary substantially with wavelength, material, and measurement geometry. For example, NIST reports that even PTFE, commonly sued as a diffuse reflector, exhibits changing reflectance as the ultraviolet wavelength changes1. This demonstrates that reflection behavior measured in one wavelength regime does not necessarily predict reflection behavior in another. Accordingly, converting radar reflection information into a UVC reflection image is a technically complex and relatively unpredictable problem requiring detailed knowledge of how the relevant surfaces respond at both radar and UVC wavelengths. A person of ordinary skill would therefore need a defined conversion relationship or mode, rather than merely being told that a transformation is to be performed.
Despite this complexity, the instant disclosure provides no working example of an actual radar image being transformed into a UVC reflection image, no example values for transformation matrix C, and no validation showing that the resulting UVC image corresponds to actual UVC reflection behavior. Thus, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the absence of working example weight against enablement.
Quantity of experimentation
To make and use the invention commensurate with the scope of claim 1, a person of ordinary skill would first have to determine how radar reflections measured from the surfaces and objects of a space corresponds to UVC reflections from those same surfaces and objects. The artisan would then have to develop a transformation capable of converting the spatial radar reflection information into predicted UVC reflection information and determined how the radar and UVC wavelengths are incorporated into that transformation. Because the specification does not teach how transformation matrix C is derived, the artisan would have to determine the matrix or an equivalent transformation independently. This would require, for example, determining the relationship between radar and UVC reflection behavior for the relevant surfaces and geometries, developing a model capable of converting the radar-image information into UVC reflection information, and determining whether the resulting UVC reflection image accurately predicts the actual UVC reflection behavior of the space. Claims 2 and 9 would require still further experimentation to determine how the claimed material properties can first be obtained from radar sensor signals and then incorporated into the transformation. These activities are not merely routine optimization of disclosed parameters. Rather, they require development of the very relationship that performs the central claimed function. The specification provides the desired result but does not provide sufficient direction as to how to reach that result. Accordingly, the quantity and nature of experimentation necessary to arrive at an operative radar-to-UVC transformation would be undue. This weights against enablement.
The totality of the evidence demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to make or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Therefor the claims at issue are not enabled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 8 each recites transforming a radar image into a UVC light reflection image, wherein the transformation is dependent on the wavelength of the radar radiation and the wavelength of the UVC radiation.
The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed.
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
In the instant case, the claim defines the invention by the desired result of transforming radar reflection information into a corresponding UVC reflection image. The specification states that a radar reflection matrix may be multiplied by a transformation matrix C to obtain the UVC reflection image and states generally that reflection coefficients at different wavelengths may be used. However, the disclosure does not identify how transformation matrix C is determined, what relationship between the radar and UVC reflection data is embodied in C, or otherwise provide sufficient identifying characteristics of the claimed transformation.
Thus, the disclosure provides the desired input and output and labels the intermediate operation a “transformation,” but doses not sufficiently describe the transformation itself such that one or ordinary skill would recognize that applicant has possession of the claimed radar-to-UVC transformation, rather than merely possession of the desired result. Accordingly, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2 and 9 further require determining material properties from radar sensor signals and using those properties in the transformation, but the disclosure likewise does not sufficiently identify the relationship by which the radar signals yield the claimed material properties.
Conclusion
Based on Examiner's search, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 16 cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 based on the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Measuring Up: Light reflection and transmission. (2022). NIST. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/01/measuring-light-reflection-and-transmission
Prosecution Insights