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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that Groups I and II refer to the same invention, hence search and examination being made without serous burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of Group I and Group II are drawn into different classes and each invention requires a different field of search. Applicants’ attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements, which introduces additional search and examination burden. Applicants’ arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive in so far as the searches are not co-extensive and additional search would of necessity be required for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "preferably", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites "preferably", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites "preferably" and “especially”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 6 recite "preferably", “advantageously”, and “for instance”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “an open state” and “a flow of gas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a gas supply" and “a non-thermal plasma cleaning device” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-12 are rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations cited in claim 8 does not further limit the subject matter from claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lam et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0220500) in view of Taggart et al (PG-PUB US 2017/0304476).
Regarding claim 1, Lam et al disclose a disinfection/sterilization/cleaning device (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a vessel 110 configured to receive herb 120 for disinfection, wherein the vessel 110 comprises a gas inlet aperture 170 connected to a gas source (i.e., an enclosure … an input port…, Figures 1-5, paragraphs [0041], & [0058] – [0059]); and
(2) a plasma excitation device 102 coupled to the vessel 110 and comprising a radio-frequency power source 140 to produce electromagnetic power within the vessel 110, wherein the cold plasma generation is activated or deactivated through electrical execution via a switch 150 (i.e., a radio-wave source … an active state … and an inactive state …, Figures 1-5, paragraphs [0044], & [0049]).
Lam teaches that (i) a controller is provided to activate the cold plasma generation for disinfecting the herb 120 with a certain time period and to deactivate the cold plasma generation thereafter for a certain time period (i.e., a controller… in the active state during a first pre-determined duration, … in the inactive state during a second predetermined duration …), and (ii) the inlet aperture 170 allows air into the vessel 110, when open, to enhance gas transportation from the plasma generation region 132 to the treatment region 112 , thereby more active species reaching the treatment region for effective and quick plasma treatment (Figure 1, paragraphs [0042]- [0043], [0059], [0081] – [0085], Table & [0092]), but does not teach the controller configured to perform the disinfection/sterilization/cleaning cycle or to keep the inlet aperture open after deactivating the plasma generation.
However, Taggart et al disclose a disinfection/sterilization/cleaning device (ABSTRACT). Taggart teaches that air containing active species is introduced to a sterilization chamber 110 through a pump for sterilization/active process and a breakdown/inactive process after the sterilization process is performed, wherein a control panel is provided to couple airflow inlet, pump, power source, and other components to properly control sterilization cycles and the control panel is also configured to control airflow inlet open during the breakdown process for improving treatment efficiency (Figures 4 & 8, paragraphs [0063], [0076], [0082], [0119],& [0127]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to integrate the controller with a function to perform the sterilization cycles and to allow air through the airflow inlet during breakdown/inactive state as suggested by Taggart in order to properly monitor the operation and improve treatment efficiency within the device of Lam with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Lam teaches that a gas pump 160 is coupled to the vessel 110 and the controller can activate the pump, wherein the pressure therewithin is lower than 0.001 bar (Figure 1, paragraphs [0057] & [0083]).
Regarding claim 3, Lam teaches that the pressure therewithin is lower than 0.001 bar (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Lam teaches that the frequency may be in a range of 10 KHz to 100 MHz (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Lam teaches that the exposure time may be less than 5 min (paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Lam teaches that the power source may be properly regulated by pulse-modulation with on/off interval for maintaining desired temperature and achieving effective treatment (paragraph [0047]). Taggart teaches that the breakdown process may be varied with different time (paragraphs [0083]).Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized to regulate active/inactive duration in order to achieve desired treatment within the device of Lam/Taggart.
Regarding claim 7, Lam teaches to run different cycles to achieve different treatment results (paragraphs [0084] – [0085], & Table). Taggart teaches five cycles (paragraph [0105]).Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized to run at least five disinfection cycles in order to achieve desired treatment within the device of Lam/Taggart.
Regarding claim 8, Lam teaches that the inlet aperture 170 allows air into the vessel 110, when open, to enhance gas transportation from the plasma generation region 132 to the treatment region 112 , thereby more active species reaching the treatment region for effective and quick plasma treatment (Figure 1, paragraphs [0042] - [0043], [0059] & [0094]). Taggart teaches that the control panel is configured to control airflow inlet during the breakdown process for improving treatment efficiency (Figures 4 & 8, paragraphs [0063], [0076], [0082], [0119],& [0127]).
Regarding claim 9, Lam does not teach a temperature sensor coupled to the controller. However, Taggart et al disclose a disinfection/sterilization/cleaning device (ABSTRACT). Taggart teaches that a temperature sensor is coupled to the control panel to monitor the temperature within the sterilization chamber and the control panel may notify the user if the temperature is outside of predetermined range (paragraph [0082] & [0117]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to couple a temperature sensor to the controller as suggested by Taggart in order to monitor temperature within the device of Lam.
Regarding claim 10, Lam teaches that a gas source is connected to the inlet aperture 170 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0058] – [0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Lam teaches that air is supplied to the vessel 110 through the inlet aperture 170 (Figure 1, paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 12, Lam teaches that the inlet aperture 170 allows gas into the vessel 110 (Figure 1, paragraph [0059]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are rejected. Claims 13-14 are canceled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795