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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/4/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser et al. (US 10,183,881) in view of Denes et al. (US 2004/0007539) and Gu et al. (US 2020/0392028).
Regarding claim 14, Fraser teaches a system for treating unwanted material in water comprising a plasma energy generation subsection (101 Fig. 1 and 4a) and a cell structure subsection (102) operable to generate and apply plasma energy to the water to form reactive and molecular species in the water to treat the unwanted material, the cell structure comprising one plasma cell (Figs. 1, 4A-4I) and an electrolytic, biocidal treatment chamber (100A) (C4/L62-C5/L16, C5/L63-C6/L6, C7/L53-C8/L35, and C16/L60-C17/L35). Fraser further teaches that electronic controllers are used to control water treatment systems by complete instructions and functions of the various components of the treatment system in a manner that is more efficient than allowing human minds to control the process (C4/L18-40).
Fraser teaches only one plasma cell and thus fails to teach multiple plasma cells. Denes teaches that in treating water via plasma cells, multiple plasma cells can be used in series or parallel, and that multiple inlets and outlets are controlled via valves and the like ([0021], [0039], and [0055]). Denes teaches that a manifold is present in order to control all the varying flows in a manner allowing for continuous treatment via parallel plasma cells. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple plasma cells arranged in a series and parallel manner with a manifold in order to control the circulation of the fluid being treated via multiple cells thereby facilitating continuous treatment of the water via different plasma cells.
Frasier teaches that valves can be used to control flow within the system (C6/L58-61) and it could be argued that valves can provide the isolation function of protecting against flow/pressure spikes. However, it could also be argued that the valves merely divert or control flow and do not have the function of protection claimed. Gu teaches that it is beneficial to provide a buffer tank upstream of various elements in order to mitigate any safety issue arising from a surge in flow/pressure ([0048]). Gu further teaches that flows around the buffer tank can be controlled via an inlet pump (202) and pump that controls flow out of the buffer tank (402) ([0014]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide an isolation means, such as a buffer tank with the pump/booster pump(s) in conjunction with valves and piping, in order to protect the system components from surges and control flow through the system to acceptable levels. It is noted that the buffer tank is provided to be in fluid communication with both upstream and downstream water treatment means in order to control the flow of water to and from the various treatment means, mitigate any surges in water being treated to said treatment means, and provide storage for any peak loads to the treatment means ([0048]). When the buffer tank in Gu is provided in the Fraser system, the buffer tank would be fluidly connected to the various water treatment means, such as the plasma energy generation subsection and the cell structure subsection, or the buffer tank would not be able to provide the desired controlling, surge protecting, and storing functions to the Fraser apparatus.
In regards to the electric controller that controls the flow rate, Fraser teaches that a controller is used to control various elements in the system and the flow rates can be limited (C4/L28-40 and C6/L15-22). Denes teaches that an electronic controller is used to control elements within the system and that pumps and valves are provided to control flow into and out of various elements in the system ([0054]-[0057]). Gu teaches that various operational parameters are controlled, such as flow rates, retention times, individual elements of the system, and flux ([0014], [0048], [0120]). It is Examiner’s position that one skilled in the art with the references before them would have found it obvious to provide use the Fraser electronic controller in order to control the various elements of the system, such as the plasma cells, valves, and pumps, thereby providing provide automated control of the system in a more efficient manner than the human mind. It is further noted that the structure claimed is an electronic controller that controls a booster pump capable of controlling liquid flowing into and out of the buffer tank, which in turn would provide the capability/function of preventing pressure spikes/flow into the plasma cells. In this case, Fraser teaches using an electronic controller to efficiently control the elements in a water treatment process, Gu teaches elements such as pumps that control flow into and out of portions of the system and a buffer tank between said pumps, and Denes teaches that various elements can have flow control means (pumps and valves) to control flow into and out of various containment means. Therefore, modified Fraser teaches the structure claimed and the capability of controlling the pumps via an electronic controller in order to control flow and thus pressure is also considered in Gu ([0048]). As such, modified Fraser teaches the structure and function capabilities claimed.
Regarding claim 15, the "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). In this case, the specific water being treated and the noted unwanted material is not given patentable weight as it is directed to what the apparatus works on rather than the apparatus itself. It is noted that Fraser teaches that the apparatus is used on streams to treat Legionella bacteria (C17/L25-35).
Regarding claim 16, Fraser teaches that the plasma cell has a first and second dielectric insulating layer (1003) (single slot double dielectric barrier discharge (DDBD) electrodes) (Fig. 4F).
Regarding claim 17, Fraser fails to teach a manifold connected to multiple plasma cells configured to allow fluid to pass through each of the respective plasma cells. Denes teaches that in treating water via plasma cells, multiple plasma cells can be used in series or parallel, and that multiple inlets and outlets are controlled via valves and the like ([0021], [0039], and [0055]). As such, Denes teaches that a manifold is present in order to control all the varying flows in a manner allowing for continuous treatment via parallel plasma cells. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple plasma cells arranged in a series and parallel manner with a manifold in order to control the circulation of the fluid being treated via multiple cells thereby facilitating continuous treatment of the water via different plasma cells.
Regarding claim 19, modified Frasier teaches providing a buffer tank (Gu) and valves (Frasier and Denes) capable of controlling the various flows within the system and piping.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser et al. (US 10,183,881) in view of Denes et al. (US 2004/0007539) and Gu et al. (US 2020/0392028) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Grimm (US 2014/0224647).
Regarding claim 18, modified Fraser teaches the claimed elements (manifold/housing) but fails to detail the specific material used to make said elements. It would have been obvious to make the various elements in a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Grimm teaches known materials to make various parts of an electrolyzing cell having a cathode and anode would include acetal based plastics due to acetal plastics being non-conductive and insulating ([0003], [0017], and [0043]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use acetal based plastics for the various parts of the plasma cells, which has a cathode and anode, as acetal plastics are known to be suitable for the housing and conduits near electrolyzing cells and said materials are already known and used in the art at the time of invention. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use acetal based plastics as the various material to make various elements (housing/manifold) in the plasma cell with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the above rejection has been modified to address the inclusion of a controller based on teachings of the references and not case law based on Venner. Applicant argues that no teaching or motivation to include the automated controller solely based on Venner. While not conceding the correctness of this position, Examiner has provided explicit teachings in Fraser that provide distinct and clear reasoning why automated/electronic controllers would be better than human control having human error.
It is noted that Applicant is arguing that the prior art needs to address the prevention of pressure spikes in order to read on the claim limitation. The argued limitation would be considered a functional limitation. Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate. See In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1258, 84 USPQ2d 1929, 1935-1936 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (The claims were drawn to multiplexer circuit. The patent at issue claimed "coupled to" and "coupled to receive" between various portions of the circuitry. In reference to the claim phrase "input terminals ‘coupled to receive’ first and second input variables," the court held that "the claimed circuit does not require any specific input or connection … [a]s such, ‘coupled to’ and ‘coupled to receive’ are clearly different … [a]s shown in [the figures of the] patent, input terminals … only need to be ‘capable of receiving’ an input variable for the multiplexer circuit as claimed". Therefore, the specification supported the claim construction "that ‘coupled to receive’ means ‘capable of receiving.’"); Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (The court held that "programmable" claim language required only that the accused product could be programmed to perform the claimed functionality.);In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971) ("[I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art"). In this case, Gu explicitly teaches “Advantageously, the buffer tank 400 mitigates any safety issue arising from, for example, a surge in wastewater in the system 100.” The buffer tank teaches in Gu is used for the same function claimed, namely controlling flow/pressure to downstream treatment means during uneven flow times to mitigate safety issues. An increase in flow would be directly related to pressure spikes. As such, Fraser in view of Gu teaches an electronic controller that controls various parts of the system, such as electric pumps, to control flow into and out of a buffer tank thereby providing the function of mitigating safety risks due to higher flow and increased pressure.
It seems Applicant is arguing that as Fraser fails to explicitly teach operating the plasma cell in a manner to prevent pressure spikes, Fraser or any of the references cannot obviate the claimed method of operating. It is noted again that the claimed invention is an apparatus claim. The manner of operating is not given patentable weight and the various structural elements taught in modified Fraser are entirely capable of controlling flow and pressures to the various elements within the system as they are the exact same elements taught and claimed by Applicant. Further, Gu explicitly teaches buffer tanks are used to offset peak loads/spikes in flows. Thus, the structures in modified Fraser provide said function by means of controlling flow to and from the various elements thereby reading on the functional limitations claimed as the claimed function is merely an effect of controlling flow via valves, pumps, piping, and buffer tanks.
Applicant argues that since Denes fails to use the term manifold, it does not exist. Attention is directed to [0021] that states “Alternatively, the two step process may be carried out in a dual-stage dense medium plasma reactor having separate reaction stages, or containers, housed within a single reaction vessel which may be connected in parallel or, preferably, in series, to facilitate continuous production of the colloidal dispersion.” Here, it is unclear how the flows can be connected in parallel without the use of some sort of manifold/valve system capable of providing the function claimed. [0039] further discusses the use of parallel treatment cells and [0055] teaches that various ports (a manifold is conduit/structure with various ports) are used to ensure the desired flow pattern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777