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 without traverse of Species A (Claims 1-5 and 10-60) in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
The claim to priority as a 371 filing of PCT/CN2020/089346, filed on May 9, 2020 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on October 27, 2022 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-59 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1-59, the term “technique” should be changed to “method”.
In claims 44-76, the term “in 4S1” recites in line 4 should be changed to “in step 4S1”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 6-60 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 describes three steps, and contains the expression “comprising any of the following steps”. However, the technical problem to be actually solved by the present application is how to obtain a high quality atmospheric pressure plasma under a normal pressure state. The technical solutions disclosed in the description all comprise feeding a first electromagnetic wave and second electromagnetic wave and perform a release operation, and do not disclose the technical solution where a high quality atmospheric pressure plasma can be obtained only by feeding a first electromagnetic wave. Therefore, the technical solution only comprising step (1) but not comprising step (2) and/or step (3) is not supported by the description. Furthermore, the technical solution comprising step (2) but not step (1) and/or step (3); and the technical solution comprising step (3) but not comprising step (1) and/or step (2) are not logically established and thus unclear.
Regarding claim 1, in step (1), “the first electromagnetic wave beam resonates with surface plasma” implies that the presence of “surface plasma” before the feeding of the electromagnetic wave. However, it is not clear from where this plasma originates. The applicant may perhaps intend “ the first electromagnetic wave is configured to resonate with a surface of the material to excite surface plasmons”. The limitation “wherein target molecules to be ionized are introduced to a surface of the material” appears ambiguous. It appears to refer to Par. 72-73, “introduction” means “adsorption” and as such should be amended. The limitation “by controlling the interaction between the surface of the material and the target molecules” is not clear what kind of interaction it is and by which means it can be controlled.
Regarding claim 1, in step (2), “Feeding second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beams” and following “synchronously” appear in contradiction. Are the beams fed all at the same time or there is a sequence in time?
Regarding claim 1, in step (3), the expression “bulk phase plasma” is not explained in the description and does not appear to have a common meaning. Therefore, it is not clear how the ionized target molecules, still apparently adsorbed on the surface of the material, are released in the form of bulk phase plasma.
Claims 12 and 20 recites the limitation "the spatial distribution” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 and 22 recites the limitation "the polarization mode” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the polarization of the first electromagnetic wave beam” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the polarization of the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “step 2S1" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “step 2S2" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the modulated material" and “”modulated target molecules” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 45-47 recites the limitation “step 4S1" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 48 recites the limitation “step 4S2" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 49 recites the limitation “step 4S3" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 58 recites the limitation “step 5S1" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 59 recites the limitation “step 5S2" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 60 recites the limitation "the plasma source” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 13, 18-19, 21 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US Pub. 2006/0078675) (new cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar et al. discloses a plasma-assisted enhance coating, comprising any of the following step: feeding a fist electromagnetic wave beam (via electromagnetic radiation source 26 or 52) to a material (catalytic powder 70) via a free space or waveguide (Par. 34, “It will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that electromagnetic source 26 can be connected directly to chamber 14 or cavity 12, thereby eliminating waveguide 30”), such that the first electromagnetic wave beams resonates with surface plasma of the material (70) and surface plasma waves are excited (Par. 49-53), wherein target molecules to be ionized are introduced to a surface of the material (70) (Par. 68-71), and by controlling the interaction between the surface of the material and the target molecules, the electrons of the target molecules are coupled with surface plasmons on the material (70) to induce the ionization of the target molecules (Par. 68-73); feeding second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beams (via electromagnetic radiation source 26 or 52) to an ionization area of the target molecules on the surface of the material (70) synchronously via free space or waveguide (Par. 34, “It will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that electromagnetic source 26 can be connected directly to chamber 14 or cavity 12, thereby eliminating waveguide 30”) such that the ionized target molecules absorb the electromagnetic waves to improve the degree of ionization of the target molecules (Par. 68-73); and release the target molecules in the form of bulk phase plasma to realize surface coupling induced ionization (Par. 49) Kumar et al. discloses the catalyst powder 70 ionizes the gas molecules by means of resonance energy transfer principle and the apparatus can be used to manufacture an electrodeless plasma nozzle (i.e. target molecules are released in the form of the bulk plasma)). (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kumar et al. discloses the material (70) in step (1) is in the solid form comprises powder (Fig. 1A; Par. 49).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar et al. discloses the material (70) in step 1 has a size of 0.3 nm – 1000mm (Par. 47-48; Claims 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar et al. discloses the material (70) in step 1 comprises one or more mixture of more than one of metal and alloy material, carbon material, organic conductor material and semiconductor material (Par. 51 and 56-57).
Regarding claim 5, Kumar et al. discloses the metal and alloy material in step (1) comprises metal or alloy containing at least carbon (Par. 51).
Regarding claim 11, Kumar et al. discloses the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) has a wavelength ranging from 0.01 nm to 100 km (Par. 87 and 108; Claim 16).
Regarding claim 13, Kumar et al. discloses the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) has a degree of polarization of 0.01%-99% (Par.75).
Regarding claim 18, Kumar et al. discloses the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beams in step (2) comprises extremely-high frequency microwave (Par. 38-39 and 87).
Regarding claim 19, Kumar et al. discloses the second electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) has a wavelength ranging from 0.01 nm to 100 km (Par. 87 and 108; Claim 16)
Regarding claim 21, Kumar et al. discloses the second electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) has a degree of polarization of 0.01%-99% (Par.75).
Regarding claim 60, Kumar et al. discloses a plasma device, a plasma source comprises a plasma source of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. 2006/0078675) in view of Skorobogatiy et al. (US Pub. 2008/0266567) (new cited).
Regarding claim 14 and 22, Kumar et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam except a spatial distribution of the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and a spatial distribution of the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) comprises at least one of Gaussian beam, Bessel beam, Airy beam, Laguerre-Gaussian beam, Cosine-Gaussian beam, Mathieu beam, flat-topped beam and vortex beam. Skorobogatiy et al. discloses a spatial distribution of the electromagnetic wave beam is comprises of Gaussian beam (Par.38, 48, 66 and 76-77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize in Kumar et al., a spatial distribution of the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and a spatial distribution of the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) comprises at least one of Gaussian beam, Bessel beam, Airy beam, Laguerre-Gaussian beam, Cosine-Gaussian beam, Mathieu beam, flat-topped beam and vortex beam, as taught by Skorobogatiy et al., for the purpose of having the Gaussian beam’s high peak intensity at the center allows for precise targeting.
Claim(s) 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. 2006/0078675) in view of Ishii et al. (US Pub. 2004/0112541) (new cited).
Regarding claim 14 and 22, Kumar et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) except a polarization mode of the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and a polarization mode of second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) comprises at least one of natural light, partial polarization, linear polarization, circular polarization, elliptical polarization, azimuthal polarization and radial polarization. Ishii et al. discloses a polarization mode of the electromagnetic wave beam comprises a circular polarization (Par.51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize in Kumar et al., a polarization mode of the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and a polarization mode of second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) comprises at least one of natural light, partial polarization, linear polarization, circular polarization, elliptical polarization, azimuthal polarization and radial polarization, as taught by Ishii et al., for the purpose of improving the plasma generation efficiency.
Claim(s) 15 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. 2006/0078675) in view of Tang et al. (CN 1331502) (new cited).
Regarding claim 14 and 22, Kumar et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) except the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) comprises S-wave polarization and P-wave Polarization. Tang et al. discloses the polarization of the electromagnetic wave beam comprises S-wave polarization (“S-wave band”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize in Kumar et al., the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) comprises S-wave polarization and P-wave Polarization, as taught by Tang et al., for the purpose of improving the quality of the polarization electromagnetic wave beam feed.
Claim(s) 16 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. 2006/0078675) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109546319) (new cited).
Regarding claim 16 and 24, Kumar et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) except the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) has an orbital angular momentum ranging from -10 to +10. Zhang et al. discloses the electromagnetic wave beam has an orbital angular momentum ranging from -10 to +10 (Fig. 3-5 and 8-10 in the description). has an orbital angular momentum ranging from -10 to +10, as taught by Zhang et al., for the purpose of having good radiation performance and weak backward radiation.
Claim(s) 17 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. 2006/0078675) in view of Oguma (JP H10-135705) (new cited).
Regarding claim 17 and 25, Kumar et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) except the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) has a phase ranging from 0π to 2π. Oguma discloses the electromagnetic wave beam has a phase range from 0π to 2π (Par. 20 and 25; “π/2”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize in Kumar et al., the first electromagnetic wave beam in step (1) and the second and subsequent electromagnetic wave beam in step (2) has a phase ranging from 0π to 2π, as taught by Oguma, for the purpose of suitable to the user application to have a phase shift ranging from 0π to 2π for harmonic mitigation and power quality.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. 2006/0078675) in view of Joyce et al. (JP 2006-208379) (new cited).
Regarding claim 26, Kumar et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above except any one of the target molecules in step 1 , 2 and 3 has a molecular wight ranging from 1.0x100 Da to 1.0X1020 Da. Joyce et al. discloses the target molecules has a molecular wight ranging from 1.0x100 Da to 1.0X1020 Da. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize in Kumar et al., the target molecules in step 1 , 2 and 3 has a molecular wight ranging from 1.0x100 Da to 1.0X1020 Da, as taught by Joyce et al., for the purpose of improving and make efficient ion enhancement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-59 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights