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 .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 02/19/2026. 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 Claim 19 has been withdrawn and claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 17-18, and 28-31 are being examined herein.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
3. The rejection of claim 28 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 from the previous office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.9 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that the claim 1 limitation of “the first component is inserted in the second component” is not taught by primary reference Lee, because the cover 11 is not inserted in the plasma generation unit 12 as shown in Fig. 8 (at most, Lee discloses that the generation unit 12 is installed on the cover 11).
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The claim language of “inserted in” is a broad limitation and the Applicant’s specification’s definition of the first component 301 being “inserted into” second component 302 (see Fig. 16I) is one of many variations of what “inserted in” could mean. For example, the treatment object is inserted into the reception region (per claim 1 limitation) through a manner that the Office Action dated 12/10/2025 states: “the patient’s skin is sealed and thus inserted into cover 11”. Knowing that the patient’s skin as taught by Lee is the skin on the face, which is just a portion of the entire area that the patient’s skin encompasses (i.e., the mask/cover 11 is much smaller in proportion to the treatment object), a portion of the treatment object is still “inserted in” the first component/cover 11, even if the treatment object is not fully encapsulated by the cover 11. Likewise, the cover, being proportionally bigger than the walls of the plasma generating unit, is still “inserted in” the walls of the plasma generating unit.
Furthermore, Applicant’s recitation of “at most, Lee discloses that the generation unit 12 is installed on the cover 11”, by the broad definition of “inserted in”, is what reads on the instant claim limitation.
In the arguments presented on p.9 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that the limitation of “the sealing element comprises detachable components, and the sealing element comprises at least a first component and a second component having at least one wall defining the reception region” is not taught by primary reference Lee, because Lee's disclosure specifically teaches a nondetachable (separatable) cover 11 and plasma generation unit 12 rather than it being separable.
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The claim language of “detachable components” is a broad recitation. In view of the Office Action dated 12/10/2025, the Examiner mentions that “if the parts can be installed they can be detached as well” (parts being cover 11, plasma generating unit 12, and exhaust tube). This recitation was intended for the parts to be installed and detached from the treatment object, not from each other. As the claim limitation stands, the detachable feature as shown and argued via Applicant’s Fig. 16I is not specifically recited in the claim. The term “detachable components” can mean components that are separable from the treatment object.
In the arguments presented on p.9 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that the limitation of “the sealing element comprises at least a first component and a second component having at least one wall defining the reception region” is not taught by primary reference Lee, because there is no portion of the body part extending beyond the interface between the cover 11 and the plasma generation unit 12 due to the spacing parts 112.
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The recitation that the body part interacts with the interface between the cover 11 and the treatment surface (i.e., skin) is what renders the reception region, a reception region. Furthermore, there is no structural limitation in claim 1 that further defines as to what the reception region directly includes. While it is true that the reception region is at least bounded on one end via the first component and one wall of the second component, there is no end limit on the opposite side from this boundary as to how far the reception region goes.
Assuming arguendo, the cover 11 has a depth parameter, provided by the spacers. The nose area of the patient skin would be in a higher elevation from the lowest point of said mask (in the mask configuration direction of Fig. 8), which means that at least a portion of the treatment object (nose) would be higher in elevation relative to the lowest point on the mask having spacers (e.g., the jawline/cheek area) and thus the nose area of the patient skin would still be within the reception region.
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, 3-6, 9, 12, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20190184187 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an apparatus for generating a plasma above a treatment object (Fig. 8), the apparatus comprising:
a plasma-generating element (opposite electrodes of plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8 and [0138]), wherein, during operation, the plasma is generated by the plasma generating element (labeled plasma, Fig. 8), and
a sealing element attached to the plasma-generating element (walls of plasma generation unit 12, cover 11, and exhaust gas tube that seal the patient’s skin, Fig. 8),
wherein the sealing element has a cavity (cover 11 has a cavity with the shape of a face, Fig. 8) and is configured to form a closed volume with a part of the treatment object (sealing part 111, Fig. 8), so that at least a part of the cavity is part of the closed volume (the patient’s skin and the cover 11 form a sealed volume, Fig. 8 and [0008]), and, during operation of the apparatus, the plasma is generated in the closed volume ([0011]),
wherein the sealing element comprises a reception region (entire cavitated area of cover 11 receiving patient’s skin, Fig. 8) that is configured so that a part of the treatment object can be inserted into the reception region (patient’s skin is sealed and thus inserted into cover 11, Fig. 8),
wherein the sealing element comprises detachable components (plasma generation unit 12 and exhaust tube are installed in conjunction to cover 11, Fig. 8 and [0136], implying that if the parts can be installed they can be detached as well), and the sealing element comprises at least a first component (cover 11, Fig. 8) and a second component (walls of plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8) having at least one wall defining the reception region (the walls of plasma generating unit 12 define the reception region because they are in fluid connection to the patient’s skin), wherein the treatment object can be inserted in the first component (patient’s skin is sealed off by insertion to cover 11, Fig. 8) and the first component is inserted in the second component (cover 11 is inserted into walls of plasma generating unit 12 to form a sealed volume capable of generating plasma), and wherein the at least one wall of the second component (wall where plasma exits from plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8) is configured to directly face the part of the treatment object (this wall directly faces the patient’s skin).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches wherein the sealing element (walls of plasma generation unit 12, cover 11, and exhaust gas tube that seal the patient’s skin, Fig. 8) has a sealing lip surrounding an opening (sealing part 111, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the reception region is at least partly formed by a tube (exhaust gas tube leading to exhaust unit 13 is still in fluidic connection to the sealed volume, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches wherein a housing of the plasma-generating element has at least one channel reaching into the cavity of the sealing element (walls of plasma generating unit 12 housing opposite electrodes form a fluid path towards the cavity formed by the sealed volume, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a pump (exhaust unit 14, Fig. 8 and [0035]) and the at least one channel is connected to the pump (airflow from plasma generated by plasma generating unit 12 is in fluid connection to the exhaust unit 14, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein the first component comprises a treatment opening (mouth, nose, and eye holes that sealing part 111 borders that defines an opening, Fig. 8) so that, when the part of the treatment object is inserted in the first component, a surface of the treatment object is not covered by material of the first component (mouth, nose, and eyes of patient via these holes is not covered by the cover 11, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches wherein one of the components of the sealing element (walls of plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8) forms a dielectric barrier (air is a dielectric material in view of the opposing electrodes housed within plasma generating unit 12, thus being a barrier, Fig. 8) being the only dielectric barrier between the plasma-generating element and the treatment object (no other mention of electrodes other than within plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8, to which the only dielectric material/barrier separating the patient’s skin to the walls of plasma generating unit 12 is air).
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches an apparatus for generating plasma above a treatment object (Fig. 8), the apparatus comprising:
a plasma-generating element (opposite electrodes of plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8 and [0138]) configured to generate plasma during operation of the apparatus (labeled plasma, Fig. 8); and
a sealing element attached to the plasma-generating element (walls of plasma generation unit 12, cover 11, and exhaust gas tube that seal the patient’s skin, Fig. 8), the sealing element including:
a cavity configured to form a closed volume with a part of the treatment object (cover 11 has a cavity with the shape of a face and is sealed via sealing part 111, Fig. 8) so that at least a part of the cavity is a part of the closed volume (the patient’s skin and the cover 11 form a sealed volume, Fig. 8 and [0008]) and the plasma is generated in the closed volume ([0011]),
a reception region (entire cavitated area of cover 11 receiving patient’s skin, Fig. 8) configured so that the part of the treatment object can be inserted into the reception region (patient’s skin is sealed and thus inserted into cover 11, Fig. 8), and
detachable components including at least a second component (walls of plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8) and a third component (gas supply unit 13 and source gas tube, Fig. 8), the second component having at least one wall defining the reception region (the walls of plasma generating unit 12 define the reception region because they are in fluid connection to the patient’s skin), the second component being inserted in the third component (wall of plasma generating unit 12 is inserted to source gas tube, Fig. 8), the third component being movable with respect to the second component (gas supply unit 13 and gas source tube is a separate component with respect to plasma generation unit 12, and thus are inherently movable/detachable, Fig. 8), and the at least one wall of the second component (wall where plasma exits from plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8) configured to directly face the part of the treatment object (this wall directly faces the patient’s skin).
Regarding claim 30, Lee teaches wherein the third component (gas supply unit 13 and source gas tube, Fig. 8) comprises a mounting part for mounting the plasma-generating element (plasma generating unit 12 is mounted in fluid connection to gas supply unit 13, thus being a mounting part, Fig. 8) and a tubular part for accommodating the second component (source gas tube establishes and thus accommodates the fluid connection between gas supply unit 13 and walls of plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 31, Lee teaches a first component (cover 11), wherein the treatment object is inserted in the first component (patient’s skin is sealed off by insertion to cover 11, Fig. 8) and the first component is inserted in the second component (cover 11 is inserted into walls of plasma generating unit 12 to form a sealed volume capable of generating plasma).
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 Lee et al. (US 20190184187 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, Lee teaches the plasma-generating element (opposite electrodes housed within plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8 and [0138]), 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).
Lee 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 opposite electrodes housed within the plasma generating unit walls of Lee by incorporating an asymmetrical plug-and-turn mechanism as taught by Wunderl in order to lock the opposite electrodes to the main body/housing walls and simultaneously force the opposite electrodes in a correct orientation (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 Lee et al. (US 20190184187 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, Lee teaches a plasma generating element (opposite electrodes housed within plasma generating unit 12, Fig. 8 and [0138]), 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 opposite electrodes of Lee 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, Lee in view of Pichler teaches a sealing element (Lee, walls of plasma generation unit 12, cover 11, and exhaust gas tube that seal the patient’s skin, Fig. 8) and a piezoelectric transformer (Pichler, transformer 1, Fig. 1-2, substituted in for Lee’s opposite electrodes), with an electrically conductive layer between the transformer and the cavity (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”, see 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).
Lee 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 in the Lee/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 (Lee - of record) is set forth above but does not teach or suggest wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a projection facing the piezoelectric transformer.
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 (Lee - of record) is set forth above but does not teach or suggest wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a projection facing the piezoelectric transformer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
14. 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