DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 17 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 17 December 2025 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 16-18 are pending.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
New grounds for rejection are entered with respect to claims 1, 2, 5-13, and 16-18. Claim 4 is indicated allowable. The rejections follow.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to claim 17, Examiner construes the language “wherein the spacer is a non-electrode component” to mean “wherein the spacer is not an electrode.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (US 2013/0289557).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 8-13, and 16-18, Hancock discloses a plasma device (see Hancock, Fig. 3) for treating body surfaces (tissue) (see Hancock, Abstract; and paragraph [0001]). The device comprises a main body capable of being hand-held (see Hancock, Fig. 3) and a plasma source which consists of electrodes (284, 286) (see Hancock, Fig. 9). The device may also comprise two closing caps which are detachable and clearly define a distance between the plasma source and the tissue (see Hancock, Figs. 3 and 8). The plasma source is also detachable, and consists of electrodes and a dielectric (see Hancock, Figs. 8-10). The closing cap comprises a peripherally extending collar which may overlap the plasma source and the main body (see Hancock, Fig. 10). The plasma source is configured to generate non-thermal plasma (see Hancock, paragraph [0020]). The device includes a detachable spacer (294) which defines a distance between the plasma source and a tissue to be treated (see Hancock, Figs. 5 and 9). The plasma source may be connected to the main body by way of a connecting device which is attached to the main body in a specific orientation, i.e. with a plasma outlet opening arranged in only one direction, i.e. perpendicular to the tissue being treated (see Hancock, Figs. 5, 8, and 9). The plasma source is configured for generating surface microdischarge in ambient air on a discharge surface of the plasma source (see Hancock, paragraph [0125]). The first electrode, second electrode, and dielectric material are pressed against each other by a pressing element, all of which are arranged and sealed in a housing (see Hancock, Figs. 8 and 10). The device may include a safety circuit configured to de-energize or break the current to an electrical contact of the plasma source when the source is detached from the main body, i.e. the device may only be energized upon connection of a coaxial cable (see Hancock, paragraphs [0126], [0135], and [0153]). The spacer is physically disposed within a gap between the plasma source and a body surface to be treated when in an installed state and while treating the body surface (see Hancock, Fig. 9). The spacer maintains a distance between a plasma-generating surface (plasma source) and the body surface to be treated (see Hancock, Fig. 9).
Hancock does not explicitly disclose, in the same embodiment, wherein the spacer includes a first snap-on element and the plasma source and/or the main body includes a second snap-on element complementary to the first which functions to hold the spacer on the main body or plasma source.
However, in alternative embodiments (see Hancock, Fig. 12), Hancock clearly discloses wherein the spacer and plasma source or main body may have complementary snap-type features (tabs) that function to hold the spacer on the main body or plasma source (see Hancock, paragraph [0154]). Thus, Applicant’s claims 1, 2, 8-13, and 16-18 are obvious in view of Hancock.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (US 2013/0289557) in view of Watson (US 2016/0106993).
With respect to claims 5-7, see discussion supra at paragraph 11.
Hancock does not explicitly disclose wherein the spacer has an electronic identification device (e.g., RFID label) that permits contactless reading and which provides information about the spacer; or wherein the device is configured to perform functional verification of an electrode arrangement.
However, in a similar device, Watson provides for the use of smart electronics (e.g. RFID chips) to provide information about the type of plasma hand piece connected to the power supply and adjust a timer frequency as necessary to support the particular hand piece being used (see Watson, paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, inasmuch as Hancock discloses the use of both microwave and RF plasma generation sources (see Hancock, paragraph [0150]), then the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the device of Hancock to use smart electronics (e.g., RFID chips/labels) to perform a functional verification of such sources, such modification providing a means by which to verify and confirm the device settings to the particular hand piece being used and match it to the applied electrical signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Lee (US 2010/0125267). Lee discloses a plasma device for use in biomedical treatment (see Lee, Abstract; and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771