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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
The applicant has added claims 11-12.
Currently, claim(s) 2, 4-7, and 10-12 is/are pending examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 2, the term “the a surface” in line 5 of claim 2 should read “the surface.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 2 is/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.
As to claim 2, the term “the contact elements” in line 1 of claim 2 is indefinite because it is not clear whether “the contact elements” in line 1 of claim 2 is referring to “the contact elements arranged in the wall” in line 14 of claim 10 or “the contact elements arranged on a first surface of the carrier” in line 18 of claim 10. For examination purposes, “the contact elements” in line 1 of claim 2 is interpreted as “the contact elements arranged in the wall extending into the chamber from the surface.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-7, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander Mathys of US 20140154371 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mathys) in view of Shalom Illouz of US 2019/0013660 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Illouz), Thomas Klemm of US 2020/0188648 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Klemm), and Akinori Ito of US 2003/0068414 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Ito).
Mathys pertains to the instant invention because Mathys relates to a device for treatment of a medium by pulsed electric fields (the present invention relates to a PEF-treated composition and further methods and compositions; Mathys, paragraph [0001]).
Mathys teaches to a device (the entire installation 30; Mathys, paragraph [0295], Fig. 3) for treatment of a medium by pulsed electric fields, comprising:
a housing (reference number 21; Mathys, Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
330
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Mathys
a generator (pulses are generated by storing electrical energy in capacitors by a power supply so as to be capable of emitting high power rates; Mathys, paragraph [0137]; power supply 11 DIL Power Supply ELCRACK® HVP5, capacitors 12, transistors 13, and a transformer 14 generate pulses for electric fields; Mathys, paragraph [0290]);
a chamber integrated in the housing (see above; Mathys, Fig. 3);
a flap pivotably hinged to the chamber (doors; Mathys, Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image2.png
437
739
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Mathys
a carrier (see above; Mathys, Fig. 4);
a wall in the chamber having a surface facing into the chamber that is configured to receive and hold the carrier (a wall is in the chamber having a surface facing into the chamber that holding the carrier; Mathys, Fig. 4);
contact elements arranged in the wall extending into the chamber from the surface and being electrically connected to the generator (electrodes 4,5, and 6 are connected to power supply 11 through the carrier and the wall; Mathys, Fig. 4);
contact elements arranged on a first surface of the carrier that faces the wall and configured to contact the contact elements arranged in the wall when the carrier is in the predetermined position (see above; Mathys, Fig. 4); and
a treatment cell attached to a second surface of the carrier that is opposite the first surface of the carrier, the treatment cell comprising electrodes connected to the contact elements arranged on the first surface of the carrier (see above; Mathys, Fig. 4).
Mathys teaches that, in Fig. 3, treatment chamber 1 of Fig. 4 is positioned within the chamber (Mathys, Fig. 3) inside the housing (reference number 21; Mathys, Fig. 3).
Fig. 4 of Matthys depicts the pair of the treatment chambers 1 held by a carrier that is secured to a wall within the housing (Mathys, Fig. 4).
The wall within the housing, whilst securing the carrier holding treatment chambers, is necessarily attached to a side of the housing as the pair of the treatment chambers 1 is taught to be positioned within the chamber inside the housing.
However, Mathys does not explicitly teach how the carrier of Mathys is secured to the wall of Mathys (i.e., Mathys does not explicitly teach guidance elements on either the wall or the carrier).
More specifically, Mathys does not explicitly teach:
guidance elements on the carrier to interact with the guidance elements on the wall to align the carrier into the predetermined position
guidance elements on the wall to align the carrier into a predetermined position relative to the wall.
Illouz is relied on to teach guidance elements on both the wall and the carrier. Illouz pertains to the instant invention because Illouz relates to securing a carrier to a wall (Illouz, paragraph [0002]).
PNG
media_image3.png
515
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Illouz
Illouz teaches a carrier (electrical back box 130; Illouz, paragraphs [0037], [0039], [0047]-[0048], and [0050], Fig. 3) and a wall (housing unit 110; Illouz, paragraphs [0037], [0039], [0047]-[0048], and [0050], Fig. 3). The housing unit 110 functions as a wall, and the electrical back box 130 functions as an object that is mounted on the wall (i.e., carrier) via guidance elements.
Illouz teaches guidance elements on the wall (bolts/screws 152, 154 are threaded into base wall insert 454 through holes 132 in wall brackets 120, resulting in bolts protruding from the wall; Illouz, paragraph [0047], Figs. 3 and 12) to align the carrier into a predetermined position relative to the wall.
Illouz teaches guidance elements on the carrier to interact with the guidance elements on the wall to align the carrier into the predetermined position (holes 132 and/or threaded inserts 454; Illouz, paragraph [0047], Fig. 3).
Both Mathys and Illouz relate to wall-mounting fixtures (Illouz, paragraph [0002]). Mathys does not explicitly teach how the carrier of Mathys is secured to the wall of Mathys (i.e., Mathys does not explicitly teach guidance elements on either the wall or the carrier). Mathys does teach a carrier (Mathys, Fig. 4) and a wall in the chamber having a surface facing into the chamber that is configured to receive and hold the carrier (a wall is in the chamber having a surface facing into the chamber that holding the carrier; Mathys, Fig. 4). Illouz teaches guidance elements on the wall (bolts/screws 152, 154 are threaded into base wall insert 454 through holes 132 in wall brackets 120, resulting in bolts protruding from the wall; Illouz, paragraph [0047], Figs. 3 and 12) to align the carrier into a predetermined position relative to the wall. Illouz teaches guidance elements on the carrier to interact with the guidance elements on the wall to align the carrier into the predetermined position (holes 132 and/or threaded inserts 454; Illouz, paragraph [0047], Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Mathys with the guidance elements of Illouz for wall-mounting the carrier to a wall inside a chamber.
The terms “to align the carrier into a predetermined position relative to the wall” is an intended use. The guidance elements on the wall (threaded inserts 454; Illouz, paragraph [0047], Fig. 3) of Mathys in view of Illouz are necessarily capable of aligning the carrier into a predetermined position relative to the wall.
Mathys in view of Illouz does not explicitly teach that “a generator [is] integrated in the housing”.
Klemm pertains to the instant invention because Klemm relates to generating a pulsed electric field (Klemm, paragraph [0008]).
Klemm teaches a DC voltage generator 33 integrated in a housing (Klemm, paragraphs [0064], [0066], Fig. 5A). Klemm teaches that a pulsed electric field may be generated between first and second electrodes (Klemm, paragraphs [0008], [0069]). Klemm teaches that the generator could be located different location in the device 10 (Klemm, paragraph [0066]).
Both Mathys in view of Illouz and Klemm relate to generating pulsed electric fields (Klemm, paragraph [0008]). Mathys in view of Illouz does not explicitly teach that a generator is integrated in the housing. Mathys in view of Illouz does teach a generator for generating pulsed electric fields (pulses are generated by storing electrical energy in capacitors by a power supply so as to be capable of emitting high power rates; Mathys, paragraph [0137]; power supply 11 DIL Power Supply ELCRACK® HVP5, capacitors 12, transistors 13, and a transformer 14 generate pulses for electric fields; Mathys, paragraph [0290]). Klemm teaches a generator is integrated in a housing (Klemm, paragraphs [0064], [0066], Fig. 5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Mathys in view of Illouz with the integration of Klemm for generating electric pulsed fields within a device.
Mathys in view of Illouz and Klemm does not explicitly teach a safety switch configured to interact with the flap to provide power to the generator only when the flap is closed.
Ito pertains to the instant invention because Ito relates to an electrostatic treatment (Ito, paragraph [0001]) and a pulse width control circuit (Ito, paragraph [0299]).
Ito teaches a safety switch (safety switch 13; Ito, paragraph [0148], [0150]) configured to interact with the flap to provide power to the generator only when the flap is closed (when a door 6 provided ono the front fact of the refrigerator 1 is opened, a safety switch 13 is turned off to stop the output of the high voltage generating device 3; Ito, paragraph [0148], Fig. 2).
Both Mathys in view of Illouz and Klemm and Ito relate to electrostatic treatment with a pulse width control circuit (Ito, paragraph [0299]). Mathys in in view of Illouz and Klemm does not explicitly teach a safety switch. Mathys in in view of Illouz and Klemm does teach a housing (reference number 21; Mathys, Fig. 3). Ito teaches a safety switch (safety switch 13; Ito, paragraph [0148], [0150]) configured to interact with the flap to provide power to the generator only when the flap is closed (Ito, paragraph [0148], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Mathys in view of Illouz and Klemm with the safety switch of Ito for ensuring safety of a user by avoiding output of high voltage generating device when the door is opened.
As to claim 11, Mathys in view of Illouz, Klemm, and Ito teaches to the device of claim 10, wherein the chamber is contained within the housing (Mathys, Fig. 4).
As to claim 12, Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito teaches to the device of claim 11, wherein the generator is contained within the housing (Klemm, paragraphs [0064], [0066], Fig. 5A).
As to claim 2, Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito teaches to the device of claim 10, wherein the contact elements arranged in the wall extending into the chamber from the surface extend into the chamber only from the surface facing into the chamber (Mathys, Fig. 4).
As to claim 5, Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito teaches to the device of claim 10, wherein at least one of the guidance elements on the wall protrudes from the wall (154 screw is threaded into base wall insert 454, resulting in bolts protruding from the wall; Illouz, paragraph [0047], Figs. 3 and 12) and at least one of the guidance elements on the carrier comprises a recess (holes 132 and/or threaded inserts 454; Illouz, paragraph [0047], Fig. 3).
As to claim 6, Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito teaches to the device of claim 10, wherein the carrier and the wall each consist of insulating material (insulating material 8; Mathys, paragraph [0096], [0102]; casing, cover, or housing 16 is made from insulating material; Mathys, [0291]).
As to claim 7, Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito teaches to the device of claim 10, wherein the carrier and the wall comprise matching fixation elements (mounting screws 1442; Illouz, paragraph [0066], Fig. 14B) that fix the carrier when the carrier is aligned into the predetermined position.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander Mathys of US20140154371A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mathys) in view of Shalom Illouz of US 2019/0013660 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Illouz), Thomas Klemm of US 2020/0188648 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Klemm), and Akinori Ito of US 2003/0068414 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Ito), as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Marco Böckler of US20170167733A1 (hereinafter referred to as Böckler).
As to claim 4, Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito does not explicitly teach “non-detachable electrical leads.”
Böckler pertains to the instant invention because Böckler relates to a domestic appliance processing a food (Böckler, paragraphs [0002], [0054]).
Böckler teaches a connection of the second end of the cord, wherein the connection may be permanent and/or non-detachable (Böckler, paragraph [0053]). Böckler teaches that the non-detachable connection may be beneficial if no change in configuration or connection is desired (Böckler, paragraph [0053]). Böckler teaches that the cord may be directly connected to a circuit (Böckler, paragraph [0053]).
Both Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito and Böckler relate to a domestic appliance comprising a food (Böckler, paragraph [0002]). Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito does not explicitly teach “non-detachable electrical leads.” Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito does teach to the device of claim 10, wherein the electrodes (electrodes 4,5,6; Mathys, Fig. 4) are connected to second contact elements (second contact elements are second tips of the electrodes 4,5,6 of Mathys that are facing towards the wall of Mathys) by electrical leads (a circuit diagram used for creating electric pulses for conducting a PEF treatment necessarily uses an electrical lead). Böckler teaches a connection of the second end of the cord, wherein the connection may be permanent and/or non-detachable (Böckler, paragraph [0053]). Böckler teaches that the non-detachable connection may be beneficial if no change in configuration or connection is desired (Böckler, paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Mathys in view of Illouz, and Ito with the detachable connection of Böckler for minimizing possibility of user manipulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 09/26/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Please refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Par H Henriksson of US 2018/0116256 A1; Frank Kusters of EP 3 490 080 A1; Philippe Leconte of US 2018/0040984 A1; Hiroyyuki Matsuoka of US 2004/0002263 A; Akinori Ito of US 6,451,364 B1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794