DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 05/22/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 17-19, and 28-31 are pending in the application. Claim 19 has been withdrawn and claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 17-18, and 28-31 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
4. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
5. In the arguments presented on p.8 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 and 28 limitation of “the first component having at least one wall that is movably positioned within the second component” is not taught by Lee, alone or in combination, as agreed upon in the Examiner interview on 05/04/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Roe et al. (US 20180000937 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roe et al. (US 20180000937 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roe teaches an apparatus (Fig. 7-9 and 12B) for generating a plasma above a treatment object ([0114] and foot 780, Fig. 7), the apparatus comprising:
a plasma-generating element (plasma head assemblies 630 comprising high-voltage electrode 5100 and ground electrode 5300, Fig. 9 and 15, where Fig. 15 shows the nonthermal plasma generating assemblies of 630 in detail), wherein, during operation, the plasma is generated by the plasma generating element ([0114]), and
a sealing element attached to the plasma-generating element (housing 600 and liner 680, Fig. 9),
wherein the sealing element has a cavity (chamber 610, Fig. 9) and is configured to form a closed volume with a part of the treatment object ([0110]), so that at least a part of the cavity is part of the closed volume (610, Fig. 9) and, during operation of the apparatus, the plasma is generated in the closed volume ([0114]),
wherein the sealing element comprises a reception region (walls of chamber 610 and walls of liner 680, Fig. 9) that is configured so that a part of the treatment object can be inserted into the reception region (foot 780, Fig. 7),
wherein the sealing element comprises at least a first component (liner 680, Fig. 9) and a second component (housing 600, Fig. 9) having at least one wall defining the reception region (see Fig. 7), the first component having at least one wall (base 700, Fig. 12B) that is movably positioned within the second component (housing 600, Fig. 9), the first component and the second component being separable from each other (Fig. 9), wherein the treatment object can be inserted in the first component (Fig. 12B, and Fig. 7 showing the treatment object inserted into the liner 680) and the first component is inserted in the second component (Fig. 9), and wherein the at least one wall of the second component is configured to directly face the part of the treatment object (sidewalls of chamber 610 directly face foot 780, Fig. 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 2, Roe teaches wherein the sealing element (housing 600 and liner 680, Fig. 9) has a sealing lip (film 750, Fig. 12B) surrounding an opening (port 800, Fig. 12B).
Regarding claim 4, Roe teaches wherein the reception region is at least partly formed by a tube (chamber 610 is a rectangular tube formed by housing 600, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Roe teaches wherein a housing of the plasma-generating element (plasma holders 620, Fig. 9) has at least one channel reaching into the cavity of the sealing element (the plasma holders are a part of the cavity formed by chamber 610 and thus have channels, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Roe teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a filter (carbon filter, [0113]) and the at least one channel is connected to the filter (the channel is in fluid communication with the carbon filter, [0113]).
Regarding claim 9, Roe teaches wherein the first component (liner 680, Fig. 12B) comprises a treatment opening (port 800, Fig. 12B) so that, when the part of the treatment object is inserted in the first component (foot 780, Fig. 7), a surface of the treatment object is not covered by material of the first component (foot 780 is not fully covered by the liner 680, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Roe teaches wherein one of the components of the sealing element (air bounded by housing 600 and liner 680, Fig, 7 and 9) forms a dielectric barrier being the only dielectric barrier between the plasma-generating element (plasma head assemblies 630, Fig. 9) and the treatment object (foot 780, Fig. 7, where air is the only material that is part of the sealing element that is between the plasma heads and the foot).
Regarding claim 29, Roe teaches an apparatus (Fig. 7-9 and 12B) for generating a plasma above a treatment object ([0114] and foot 780, Fig. 7), the apparatus comprising:
a plasma-generating element (plasma head assemblies 630, Fig. 9) configured to generate plasma during operation of the apparatus ([0114]); and
a sealing element attached to the plasma-generating element (main body housing 500, housing 600, and liner 680, Fig. 9), the sealing element including:
a cavity (chamber 610, Fig. 9) configured to form a closed volume with a part of the treatment object ([0110]) so that at least a part of the cavity is a part of the closed volume (610, Fig. 9) and the plasma is generated in the closed volume ([0114]),
a reception region (walls of chamber 610 and walls of liner 680, Fig. 9) configured so that the part of the treatment object can be inserted into the reception region (foot 780, Fig. 7), and
at least a second component (housing 600, Fig. 8) and a third component (main housing 500, Fig. 8), the second component having at least one wall defining the reception region (see Fig. 7), the second component having at least one wall that is movably positioned within the third component (walls of housing 510/600 slide into main housing 500, Fig. 8), the second component being inserted in the third component (Fig. 8), the third component being movable with respect to the second component (the housing 510/600 being insertable into the main housing 500 means the main housing is movable relative to the housing 510/600, Fig. 8), and the part of the treatment object being at least partially surrounded by the at least one wall of the second component (sidewalls of chamber 610 directly face foot 780, Fig. 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 30, Roe teaches wherein the third component comprises a mounting part for mounting the plasma-generating element (see drawing below, to which the mounting parts of the main housing 500 hold/secure the housing 600 (that has the plasma holders 620 that the plasma heads 630 are mounted to) to the main housing 500, Fig. 9)
PNG
media_image1.png
406
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a tubular part for accommodating the second component (rectangular slot of housing 500 that housing 510/600 slides into, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 31, Roe teaches a first component (liner 680, Fig. 9 and 12B), wherein the treatment object is inserted in the first component (foot 780, Fig. 7) and the first component is inserted in the second component (Fig. 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (US 20180000937 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wunderl et al. (DE 102018209735 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 13, Roe teaches the plasma-generating element (plasma head assemblies 630, Fig. 9), but fails to teach a locking mechanism for detachably locking the plasma generating element to the sealing element.
Wunderl teaches a plasma generating apparatus (Fig. 1-4) having a plasma-generating element (plasma source 5, Fig. 1-2), where the plasma generating element is locked onto the main body (3, Fig. 1-2) of the apparatus via a connection device (17, Fig. 2) having an asymmetrical plug-and-turn mechanism (see p.17, 7th paragraph of English translation) in order to lock the plasma source to the main body and simultaneously force the plasma source in a correct orientation (see p.17, last paragraph of English translation).
Roe and Wunderl are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plasma generating apparatuses having a plasma-generating component/element for the treatment of objects and skin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma-generating head assemblies mounted to the housing of Roe by incorporating an asymmetrical plug-and-turn mechanism as taught by Wunderl because doing so would provide the benefit of detachably locking the plasma generating elements/electrodes to the main body/housing walls and allow for a correct orientation of the plasma generating electrodes (Wunderl, see p.17, last paragraph of English translation).
10. Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (US 20180000937 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pichler et al. (WO 2018167156 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 14, Roe teaches a plasma generating element (plasma head assemblies 630, Fig. 9), but fails to explicitly teach this plasma generating element to be a piezoelectric transformer, the piezoelectric transformer comprising a first region and a second region, wherein, during operation of the apparatus, the plasma is generated in the vicinity of an end region in the second region of the piezoelectric transformer, and a housing enclosing at least a part of the first region of the piezoelectric transformer.
Pichler teaches a non-thermal plasma generator (1, Fig. 1), the piezoelectric transformer comprising a first region and a second region (first region 2 and second region 3, Fig. 1), wherein, during operation of the apparatus, the plasma is generated in the vicinity of an end region in the second region of the piezoelectric transformer (output-side end face 10, Fig. 1, see p.15, “Applied AC voltage…” paragraph of English translation), and a housing enclosing at least a part of the first region of the piezoelectric transformer (housing 11 for transformer 1, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the plasma heads of Roe with a piezoelectric transformer having a first housing as described above because the substitution of this feature would yield the predictable result of generating a non-thermal plasma (KSR Rationale B, see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Roe in view of Pichler teaches a sealing element (Roe, housing 600 and liner 680, Fig. 9) and a piezoelectric transformer (Pichler, transformer 1, Fig. 1-2, substituted in for Roe’s plasma heads 630 of Fig. 9) located within a cavity (Roe, space of chamber 610, Fig. 9), but fails to teach an electrically conductive layer between the transformer and the cavity.
Pichler further mentions that “to destroy resulting irritant gases… the first housing may have a coating. The coating may, for example, manganese dioxide, iron oxide other metal oxides, bare metal surfaces or with metal catalysts coated surfaces or paints” (Fig. 2 and p.6, 2nd paragraph of English translation of Pichler et al., to which the first housing is between the cavity and the transformer).
The instant combination and Pichler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of non-thermal plasma generation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first housing of Pichler’s piezoelectric transformer in the Roe/Pichler combination by incorporating a metal coating on the first housing in order to destroy irritant gases generated by the piezoelectric transformer (Pichler, p.6, 2nd paragraph of English translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 18 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the structural limitations of the present claim. The closest prior art to the claimed invention (Roe - of record), alone or in combination, is set forth above but does not teach or suggest wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a projection facing the piezoelectric transformer.
The instant Specification mentions that the projections on the electrically conductive layer are formed to “at least partly surround the output-side end region of the piezoelectric transformer and to reduce the gap to the output-side end region so that the surface of the projection is as close as possible to the output-side end region of the piezoelectric transformer in order to effectively transfer energy from the piezoelectric transformer to the conductive layer 24 and to reduce energy dissipation in the plasma arcing as far as possible”.
Even if there was prior art that did teach this projection, the substitution of the plasma head assemblies of Roe with Pichler’s piezoelectric plasma generating transformer would not be capable of reducing the gap to the output-side end region (i.e., “so that the surface of the projection is as close as possible to the output-side end region”) with a projection as intended, because there is a significant difference in space between the surface to be treated (Roe, foot 780, Fig. 7) and the plasma generators (Roe, 630, Fig. 9) in the prior art when compared to the Applicant’s surface to be treated and the plasma generators (Fig. 16G-I, where the space is minimal). The modification onto Roe would not provide any additional benefit and would thus be meaningless.
12. Claim 28 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 28, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the structural limitations of the present claim. The closest prior art to the claimed invention (Roe - of record), alone or in combination, is set forth above but does not teach or suggest wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a projection facing the piezoelectric transformer.
The Applicant mentions that the projections on the electrically conductive layer are formed to “at least partly surround the output-side end region of the piezoelectric transformer and to reduce the gap to the output-side end region so that the surface of the projection is as close as possible to the output-side end region of the piezoelectric transformer in order to effectively transfer energy from the piezoelectric transformer to the conductive layer 24 and to reduce energy dissipation in the plasma arcing as far as possible”.
Even if there was prior art that did teach this projection, the substitution of the plasma head assemblies of Roe with Pichler’s piezoelectric plasma generating transformer would not be capable of reducing the gap to the output-side end region (i.e., “so that the surface of the projection is as close as possible to the output-side end region”) with a projection as intended, because there is a significant difference in space between the surface to be treated (Roe, foot 780, Fig. 7) and the plasma generators (Roe, 630, Fig. 9) in the prior art when compared to the Applicant’s surface to be treated and the plasma generators (Fig. 16G-I, where the space is minimal). The modification onto Roe would not provide any additional benefit and would thus be meaningless.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights