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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of the reply filed 2 March 2026, the prior art rejection has been slightly modified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 8, 10-15 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Lith et al. (WO 12/112042; hereinafter “Van Lith”).
In regard to claims 1, 15, 17 and 25-26, Van Lith discloses a plasma treatment apparatus (devices 21, 29, 39, 47) and method of treating a material (such as seeds) comprising a housing (container 23, 31, 41 and drum 48) defining a void (accommodating space 24, 32, 42 and 49); a source (plasma generating unit 25, 38, 46, 55 of which unit 55 is inside the void as required by amended claim 15) of ionised gas plasma in communication with the void such that reactive species accumulate in the void; an agitation apparatus (distribution element 28, diffuser plate 34, gas flow from conduit 43 for circulating the plant seeds in a heat-shaped pattern, and the air stream from guiding element 53) arranged to agitate contents of the void using flowing gas (see at least page 6, lines 1-18); and a gas being ambient air (see at least page 3, line 11) surrounding the apparatus and surrounding the source of the ionized gas plasma and in the void (non-structural to the apparatus but, for the purpose of compact prosecution and the method claims necessarily present as the structures of element 28, air flow generating element 37, conduit 43, ventilator 54 would all necessarily deliver ambient air into the apparatus for plasma generation); in which the apparatus is operable to produce ionised gas plasma from the ambient air that is surrounding the source of the ionized gas plasma, the ambient air having a pressure which is approximately 1 atmosphere ± 0.2 atm (“substantially atmospheric [..] a slight overpressure”; page 2, lines 24-26 but also ambient air necessarily has a pressure of 1 atmosphere which is captured by the broadest reasonable interpretation of amended claims 1 and 15), in which the ionised gas plasma generates reactive species which accumulate in the void (plasma generating unit 25, 38, 46, 55 create reactive species within the container 23, 31, 41 and drum 48, respectively). See Figures 3-6b and page 10, line 30 through page 12 line 27.
In regard to claim 8, Van Lith does not explicitly disclose a power source for the source, but does discuss the sources require power consumption (“high electrical power”). See page 4, lines 19-21. Therefore, the source is necessarily electrically connected to a power supply.
In regard to claim 10, Van Lith depicts an opening in the top of device 39 of Figure 5 which would be capable of functioning as a gas exhaust conduit through which the gas can be exhausted from the void. Nonetheless, the other devices of Figures 3, 4 and 6a would also necessarily include a gas exhaust conduit as each device is disclosed to have gas being delivered to the space within the container/drum and, in order to maintain the pressure at approximately 1 atmosphere, an exhaust conduit or equivalent structure would be required.
In regard to claim 11, Van Lith discloses wherein plasma treatment of seeds can result in the electronic excitation of some atoms and molecules to produce ultraviolet radiation within the disinfection zone which would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of “source of ultra-violet radiation.” See page 2, lines 9-11.
In regard to claim 12, the device 29 of Figure 4, the device 39 of Figure 5 and the device 47 of Figure 6a all have their respective sources (plasma generating unit 38, 46, 55) positioned outside of the void (accommodating space 32, 42 and 49) and with a conduit (channels in diffuser plate 34, conduit of plasma generator 46 as depicted, and openings 52) for the ionized gas plasma or for reactive species generated by the ionised gas plasma from the source to the void. See Figures 4-6a and page 11, line 11 through page 12, line 27.
In regard to claims 13, 14, and 24, Van Lith discloses that water can be introduced to the accommodating space using a moisturizing element for moisturizing the plat seeds to be disinfected. As the seeds are under treatment by a plasma, it is viewed that the added water would necessarily be “plasma activated water” within the accommodating space for allowing the formation of hydroxyl radicals. See page 7, lines 5-11.
In regard to claims 18-20, Van Lith teaches wherein the material comprises seeds and the method results in the disinfection and promotion of gemination of the seeds over the same period within which the seeds are treated within the accommodating space by the plasma. See page 1, lines 3-5 and 31-34.
In regard to claim 21, Van Lith teaches wherein the method results in the killing of viruses, bacteria, fungus or fungal spores (saprophytes, mycotoxines, and mycoflora) on the seeds. See page 1, lines 24-34.
In regard to claim 22, Van Lith discloses introducing a gas into the void through a gas conduit (connection to element 28, air flow generating element 37, conduit 43, ventilator 54) and exhausting the gas through a gas exhaust conduit. The gas exhaust conduit is viewed to be an opening in the top of device 39 of Figure 5 which would be capable of functioning as a gas exhaust conduit through which the gas can be exhausted from the void. The other devices of Figures 3, 4 and 6a would also necessarily include a gas exhaust conduit as each device is disclosed to have gas being delivered to the space within the container/drum and, in order to maintain the pressure at approximately 1 atmosphere, an exhaust conduit or equivalent structure would be required.
In regard to claim 23, Van Lith discloses that the reactive species can comprise ozone, hydroxyl radicals, and nitrous oxides. See page 2, lines 7-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Lith in view of Denes et al. (WO 00/78124; hereinafter “Denes”).
In regard to claim 2, Van Lith is silent in regard to wherein the agitation apparatus comprises part of the housing comprising walls comprising at least one rotating wall.
Denes discloses a plasma treatment apparatus (cold plasma reactor system 10) comprising a housing (cylindrical reaction vessel 11) defining a void; a source (feedthrough 19 connected to source gas container 26 and electrodes 21,24) of ionised gas plasma in communication with the void; an agitation apparatus (drive motor 35) comprising at least one rotating wall as the drive motor 35 rotates the entire vessel 11 which is arranged to agitate contents of the void. See pages 6-8 and Figure 1. Denes teaches that atmospheric (i.e. carried out at about 1 atm) pressure barrier discharges, while “not preferred for certain applications of the invention,” are still a viable manner for carrying out the invention. See page 10, lines 20-27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the rotating wall agitation means of Denes with the apparatus of Van Lith for the purpose of providing turbulence to the seeds such that contact with the plasma is increased. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
In regard to claim 3, Van Lith discloses wherein the source of ionised gas plasma is within the void as the sources produce the plasma within the container/drum. See Figures 3-6a.
In regard to claim 4, the above combined device of Van Lith and Denes includes wherein each rotating wall is arranged for rotation around the source as the walls of the container would rotate around the void within the vessel where the plasma is produced. See Figure 1 of Denes.
In regard to claim 5, Denes discloses drive means (drive motor 35) arranged to rotate each rotating wall around the source. See Figure 1 and page 8. Thus, the above combined apparatus of Van Lith and Denes would necessarily include the drive means to cause the wall to rotate.
In regard to claim 6, Denes discloses wherein the walls comprise at least one fixed wall (such as the Faraday cage 50 or the walls of the feedthroughs 19,20) which is fixed relative to the source. See Figure 1 and page 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the Faraday cage or the walls of the feedthroughs as disclosed by Denes with the above combined apparatus for the purpose of preventing contact with the electrodes and to feed additives into the void.
In regard to claim 7, Denes discloses wherein the apparatus is provided with a power conduit (see the line connecting the power supply 22 with the electrode 21) for transmitting electric power to the source from outside of the void, comprising an electrical connection passing through one of the at least one fixed wall (Faraday cage 50). See Figure 1 and page 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the power conduit as disclosed by Denes with the above combined apparatus for the purpose transmitting electric power to the source such that it can operate.
In regard to claim 9, Van Lith discloses at least one baffle (guiding sleeve) within the accommodating space 42 for causing the plant seeds to be circulated in a heart-shaped pattern by the gas flow. See Figure 5 and lines 5-9.
Van Lith is silent to wherein the baffle is arranged for rotational movement within the void.
Denes discloses a plasma treatment apparatus (cold plasma reactor system 10) comprising a housing (cylindrical reaction vessel 11) defining a void; a source (feedthrough 19 connected to source gas container 26 and electrodes 21,24) of ionised gas plasma in communication with the void; an agitation apparatus (drive motor 35) comprising at least one rotating wall as the drive motor 35 rotates the entire vessel 11 which is arranged to agitate contents of the void. See pages 6-8 and Figure 1. Denes teaches that atmospheric (i.e. carried out at about 1 atm) pressure barrier discharges, while “not preferred for certain applications of the invention,” are still a viable manner for carrying out the invention. See page 10, lines 20-27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the rotating wall agitation means of Denes with the apparatus of Van Lith for the purpose of providing turbulence to the seeds such that contact with the plasma is increased. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Thus, the combined apparatus of Van Lith and Denes would include at least one baffle which is arranged for rotation movement within the void as the guiding sleeve of Van Lith is equivalent to the recited at least one baffle when rotated by the drive motor of Denes.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Lith in view of Denes and Walters (US 2012/0145041).
In regard to claim 9, Van Lith and Denes are applied in the same manner as above. This rejection is included in case it is viewed that the combined apparatus of Van Lith and Denes would not disclose the recited structure.
Walters discloses an apparatus for plasma-treating small particles wherein the vessel includes paddles, vanes, baffles, scoops or the like on the walls of the vessel to lift the particles such that they fall through the plasma zone within the vessel. See [0018] and [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the internal baffles of Walters with the above combined apparatus of Van Lith and Denes for the purpose of picking up the contents of the vessel and dropping them in the central region of the vessel to further agitate the contents to better contact the plasma therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose a housing as claimed which causes the “reactive species [to] accumulate in the void.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that the provided references do not disclose wherein the reactive species “accumulate in the void” as “the references are limited to externally sourced flowing gas entering a region, shaping a plasma, and exiting the region.” However, the Examiner has applied the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “accumulate” which is defined by Oxford Languages dictionary to mean “gather together or acquire an increasing number or quantity of.” Thus, it is held that the analogous housing structures of Van Lith are capable of “gathering together” reactive species as the housings are enclosed for defining the boundaries of the plasma and generated reactive species.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774