Detailed Notice
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Claims 1-12 are pending consideration.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronda (US20180185530A1) in view of Tsui (US 20140178254 A1), further in view of Nunnally (US 20160102025 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ronda teaches a surface treatment process which includes variations in which the cleaning process is facilitated by a robotic device (shown generally in the modified composite images below from Ronda Fig. 1, 5, and 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ronda teaches the surface treatment device in several stages.
First, as regards the housing and air convection Ronda discloses that the surface treatment device has an air conduit located in between an inlet and outlet, including an airflow generator [0042]. The conduit includes a treatment chamber (element 125, Fig. 1), in which a reactive particle generator (element 130, Fig. 1) is located [0042]. The conduit may also include an air flow generator (element 150, Fig. 1) which is noted to include an electric fan [0043]. Critically, the invention disclosed herein is referred to as an “ionic wind generating device” where the operation of the plasma generating system creates the air flow, or the ionic wind, in a range of 0–10 m3 hr-1 [0046]. Further, Ronda discloses that the air flow generator may operate by a “fanless” embodiment, as the space between the electrode contains ionized particles which generate an “ionic wind” that delivers air to a surface under treatment without the need a supporting fan system [0043]. As the applicant’s apparatus operates under the same central principal (that is, of forming a corona plasma which is the consumption of air and its subsequent ionization, see applicant’s specification [Pg. 2]), it is understood that Ronda teaches to the arrangement which produces no air flow. The air flow generator is controlled by a “controller” (element 155, Fig. 1) in order that the “air flow rate may be adjustable” [0044].
Second, as regards the plasma generation system referred to in Ronda as a “reactive particle generator”. Contained inside the reactive particle generator are a “corona wire” (element 200, Fig. 6) [0059] and a collector electrode (understood to be equivalent to a cathode; element 205, Fig. 6) [0059] which generate “ionic wind” (e.g. plasma) in order that the “bottom face” (element 220, Fig. 6), [0059], which has openings, can expose a surface (element 300, Fig. 6) [0059] to be treated to the plasma generated within. The distance between the corona wire and the collector is 20 mm [0062]. It is understood that the device disclosed of Ronda is capable of having the electrode polarizations reversed. The courts have broadly held that a manner of operating the device does not distinguish above the prior art, as it is the structure of an apparatus that is given patentable weight (see MPEP 2114 II). The ionic wind device enclosed in “casing” (element 125, Fig. 14; [0075]) (understood to be equivalent to a frame) is “positioned” [0059] to face “ the surface to be cleaned” [0059].
Third, as regards dimensions of the electrodes within the housing. The total length of the reactive particle generator is 80 mm and the height is 20 mm [0061] such that during operation the electrodes affixed above the bottom surface [0059] generate plasma that extends 10 mm below the reactive particle generator surface [0071] to the bottom of the casing. Further the generated plasma extends “1-5 mm below the outer surface of the plasma generating device” [0042] so that the generated plasma interacts with surfaces outside the housing and is within 20 mm from the plane of the electrodes.
Fourth, Ronda teaches that the voltage of the corona wire is 5.9 kV and that of the collector voltage being -5 kV [0071]. It is understood that the difference in voltage between the cathode and anode is approximately 10 kV, which applicant notes is within range of the device disclosed by the instant application (see applicant’s specification bottom of Pg. 5).
However, Ronda does not teach a power supply for supplying high voltage alternating current to the electrodes.
Tsui teaches an apparatus for air purification and disinfection using plasma generation [Abstract].
Tsui teaches the use of a “high-voltage alternating current power supply” [0066] to supply electrical energy which “can provide sufficient voltage to cause breakdown and to generate plasma” [0066] that can facilitate disinfection and purification. Tsui teaches that the applied voltage is between 10 – 50 kV [0066] which is the overlaps as in Rhonda. It is understood that for an AC system, the voltage oscillates between negative and positive ranges, whereby such an application causes any electrode in the system to alternatively function as a cathode or an anode.
However, Tsui does not teach that it would be apparent to apply an AC power supply system to the corona wire system of Ronda.
Nunnally teaches an apparatus for the generation of plasma to apply to water for the purpose of enhanced plant growth (abstract). Nunnally teaches an overview state of the art of plasma process systems, wherein he states that both pulsed and continuous configurations of corona production occur around a thin wire [0042], e.g. a corona wire, as in the case of Ronda, may be either produced by a continuous or pulsed voltage. Further, Nunnally teaches that a power supply sufficient to generate plasma may result from a “ pulsating DC, steady-state DC, or AC, preferably steady-state DC” system, with preferably 6 to 10 kV power supply, as in both Ronda and Tsui [0053]. Accordingly, Nunnally reinforces the notion that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply an AC power supply system to a corona discharge generating plasma processing apparatus.
Prior to the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the known method of providing electrical power to a plasma generation device using a high voltage alternating current power supply, as per Tsui and Nunnally, into the base device of a plasma generating system taught by Ronda, which would result in a pair of electrodes functioning as cathode or anode at an AC frequency (see MPEP 2143 I A).
Regarding Claim 2, in view of the invention demonstrated through the combination of Tsui in the teachings of Ronda and Nunnally shown in claim 1.
Ronda further teaches a plasma generating device that employs the use a “dielectric barrier discharge” [0042] to generate the plasma. Ronda teaches that the electrodes, as shown in claim 1, comprise an anode (high voltage) and cathode (low voltage). Ronda teaches that the anode is a “corona wire” [0042].
However, Ronda does not specifically recite either electrode being coated by a dielectric material or that one or both of the electrodes are insulated.
Tsui teaches an inner and outer electrode that comprise an electrode pair. The inner electrode includes an insulation layer; the outer electrode includes an insultation layer [0062].
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ronda as per Tsui so as to incorporate insulation on the electrodes in order that the dielectric barrier discharge method for producing plasma as taught by Ronda would function as intended.
Regarding Claim 3, Ronda teaches that contained inside the reactive particle generator is a “corona wire” (element 200, Fig. 6; [0059]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ronda teaches that the electrodes affixed above the bottom surface [0059] (which is understood to be planar given the description granted in Fig. 7 of the reactive particle generator) generate plasma that extends 10 mm below the reactive particle generator surface [0071] to the bottom of the casing. Further the generated plasma extends “1-5 mm below the outer surface of the plasma generating device” [0042] so that the generated plasma from the plane of the electrodes interacts with surfaces outside the housing and is within 20 mm from the plane of the electrodes.
Regarding Claim 7, Ronda teaches that in the surface treatment apparatus disclosed there may be included an air flow generator (element 150, Fig. 1) which is noted to include a “fan” or “air flow generator” (element 150, Fig. 1; [0043]). The air flow generator is said to create air flow which “allow[s] the surface treatment device to be operated… by the reactive particles generated by the reactive particles generator” [0045]. The reactive particle generator is also referred to as an ionic wind device [0059]. The ionic wind device is positioned such that the bottom faces the surface to be cleaned [0059]. Per the first paragraph of the second page of the instant application, O2 is required to generate the ozone which performs sanitization of a surface to be treated. Therefore, Ronda teaches a fan which directs air to a surface to be treated, as air is needed in order to make plasma to treat a surface. Further to this point, as the fan provides the air to produce the sanitizing air being applied to a surface to be treated, it is clear that Ronda teaches that the air being provided would also be sanitized.
Regarding Claims 8-9, Ronda teaches that in embodiments where the surface treatment device is an autonomous robotic device, there may be “a set of wheels” controlled by a controller (element 155, Fig. 6) [0057] (element 125, Fig. 1). A set of wheels is understood to be a plurality of wheels, and via the set of wheels, the invention disclosed by Ronda can facilitate movement over a surface to be treated. Further, these wheels are understood to demonstrate a sliding surface.
Regarding Claim 10, in further view of the modified invention of Ronda demonstrated above, Ronda teaches that the corona wire and collector electrodes apply a voltage bias at 5.9 kV and -5 kV [0070], respectively.
Ronda does not teach a power supply that can supply electricity between 10 and 50 kV.
Tsui teaches an applied voltage of 10-50 kV, provided by the high voltage alternating current power supply, for the electrodes for generating plasma [0066].
Barring a demonstration of criticality, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ronda as per Tsui to increase the voltage output to the provided electrodes in order to generate plasma for disinfecting a surface.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, in further view of the modified invention of Ronda demonstrated above, Ronda teaches that an air flow generator is controlled by a “controller” (element 155, Fig. 1) in order that the “air flow rate may be adjustable by the inclusion of a user interface” [0044].
However, Ronda does not teach that the controller can adjust the power supply, control amplitude, waveform period and shape of applied voltage. Additionally, Ronda does not teach that the waveform period is in a range of 10-1 ms to 102 ms.
Tsui teaches that the power supply includes an electronic control unit and a high voltage generator [0066-67]. Tsui teaches that a voltage in the range of 10-50 kV can be applied [0066] - [0067]. Tsui further teaches that the waveform period is in a range of 10-1 ms to 102 ms and that the waveform and waveform shape can be selected to match the size of the reaction chamber [0066] - [0067].
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the controller taught by Ronda to include the adjustable features changing the applied voltage magnitude, the applied voltage shape, and the waveform period as per Tsui in order to provide a surface treatment apparatus with adjustable control settings. The limitation of the controller maximizing plasma treatment and minimizing generation of unwanted bi-product gases is understood to be an intended use, and is therefore not further limiting the claim.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronda (US20180185530A1) in view of Tsui (US 20140178254 A1) and Nunnally (US 20160102025 A1), further in view of Knausdorf (US 9980362 B1).
Ronda, as modified above, teaches to the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ronda does not teach in any embodiment that the surface treatment device has non-planarity to it or is capable of conforming to a surface, or that the casing of the device is flexible and capable of elastic deformation.
Knausdorf teaches a flexible surface treatment device which uses plasma generation to sanitize surfaces. Knausdorf teaches that the devices is configured to conform to an irregular surface to enable treatment with plasma [Abstract]. The plasma treatment device maintains AC voltage between the two electrodes in the device, which the device conforms to the surface of the item being treated, for the purposes of disinfection [Col 5, Lines 8-10].
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Knausdorf into the modified teachings of Ronda, as demonstrated above, so as to maximize the number of applicable surfaces that the disclosed device of Ronda would be capable of cleaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ronda differs from the present invention and that the combination of Ronda and Tsui is improper as they function by operational principles. This is a piecemeal analysis that attempts to undermine the references individually while the rejection applied above results from the combination of the references. As shown above, it is widely understood that the manner of producing sanitizing air, as per Nunnaly, is numerable and varied, to the extent that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that they could incorporate the AC electrode structures of Tsui into Ronda in order to arrive at the present invention. While Applicant may be correct that the present invention can be differentiated from Ronda in view of Tsui In view of Nunnaly, applicants current claims are not commensurate with that argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759