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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weltmann (US 20160220714 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weltmann teaches a system for sterilizing a flow of air in a ventilation system (disinfection system for ventilating disinfection area, Abstract), comprising:
A source of carrier gas (aerosol generator 9);
A humidifier (humidifying surfaces 20) connected to said source of a carrier gas, ([0053]);
A source of a feed gas (air stream L, [0037]);
A plasma generator (2) configured to plasmatize said carrier gas into a plasma;
A mixer (surrounding plasma generator 2) having an interior chamber, an active electrode (high voltage electrode, [0040]) inside said interior chamber and connected to an electrical output of said plasma generator, an outer electrode connected to a ground (ground electrode [0040]) and a dielectric barrier between said inner electrode and said outer electrode (plasma is formed by dielectric barrier discharge, [0038]), wherein said mixer has a first fluid input port connected to said humidifier (which is part of the source of carrier gas, fig. 6), a second fluid input connected to a source of a feed gas (inputs for flows L and A, fig. 2) and a fluid output (for plasma stream P) connected to a ventilation system, and
A duct fan (11) configured to draw said feed gas into said mixer.
Regarding claim 3, Weltmann teaches that the carrier gas comprises air (claim 4, aerosol generator has an air stream, therefore the gas stream from the generator includes air).
Regarding claim 4, Weltmann teaches that said feed gas comprises air (air stream L, [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Weltmann teaches a duct connected to said mixer (duct connecting aerosol generator 9, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Weltmann teaches a method for sterilizing a flow of air in a ventilation system (disinfection system for ventilating disinfection area, Abstract), comprising:
Providing a flow of a carrier gas (from aerosol generator 9);
Humidifying (humidifying surfaces 20) said flow of a carrier gas, ([0053]);
Plasmatizing said humidified carrier gas with electrical energy from a plasma generator (2) in a mixer (surrounding plasma generator 2) having an interior chamber, an active electrode (high voltage electrode, [0040]) inside said interior chamber and connected to an electrical output of said plasma generator, an outer electrode connected to a ground (ground electrode [0040]) and a dielectric barrier between said inner electrode and said outer electrode (dielectric barrier discharge, [0038]), wherein said mixer has a first fluid input port connected to a source of a carrier gas, a second fluid input connected to a source of a feed gas (inputs for flows L and A, fig. 2) and a fluid output (for plasma stream P) connected to a ventilation system;
Supplying a feed gas (air stream L) into said mixer;
Mixing said feed gas with said plasmatized carrier gas in said mixer; and
Supplying said mixed feed gas and plasmatized carrier gas to a ventilation system.
Regarding claim 13, Weltmann teaches that the carrier gas comprises air (claim 4, aerosol generator has an air stream, therefore the gas stream from the generator includes air).
Regarding claim 14, Weltmann teaches that said feed gas comprises air.
Regarding claim 15, Weltmann teaches that supplying said feed gas to said mixer comprises drawing said feed gas into said mixer with a duct fan (11).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weltmann in view of Potember (US 20040120845 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Weltmann teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Weltmann does not teach a UV light array in said chamber of said mixer.
Potember teaches an air sterilization system having a UV light array (one or more UV light sources 106, [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Weltmann to have a UV light array in the airflow path (e.g. in the chamber of the mixer) in order to increase the disinfection efficiency by adding another source of disinfection as taught by Potember.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weltmann in view of Keidar (US 10,213,614 B2) .
Regarding claim 5, Weltmann does not teach that the plasma generator is configured to operate with a frequency in the range of 10 kHz to 200 kHz and an output peak voltage in the range of 3-6 kV.
Keidar teaches a plasma treatment system having a generator configured to operate with a frequency of 30-35 kHz and a voltage of 2-5 kV (col. 4 lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Weltmann to have the voltage and frequency of Keidar, as a matter of selecting values known to be effective for plasma generation in the art with no unexpected result.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weltmann.
Regarding claim 6, Weltmann does not teach that the plasma generator generates electrical energy having a frequency within 5 kHz of one of 40 kHz, 100 kHz and 200 kHz.
Weltmann teaches that the frequency of the plasma generator is between 400 Hz and 27 MHz ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a frequency corresponding to the claimed frequencies, as the system of Weltmann teaches a frequency range which encompasses the claimed range, and it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weltmann in view of Canady (US 20190231411 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Weltmann teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Weltmann does not teach that the plasma generator comprises a high frequency electrosurgical generator and a low frequency converter.
Canady teaches a plasma generation system having a high frequency electrosurgical generator and a low frequency converter ([0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Weltmann to have the generator and converter of Canady, in order to allow a common electrosurgical power generator to be used to power the system as described by Canady with no unexpected result.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weltmann in view of Sun (CN 104950087 A).
Regarding claim 9, Weltmann teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Weltmann does not teach a compressor connected to said duct for supplying said carrier gas to said duct.
Sun teaches an aerosol generator having a compressor for supplying gas to the aerosol generator (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a compressor to supply gas to the aerosol generator (and therefore the duct connected to the aerosol generator) of Weltmann, as Sun teaches that this is an ordinary simple means of supplying gas to such a generator with no unexpected result.
Claims 11-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weltmann in view of Schneider (US 20130319460 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 16-17, Weltmann teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as described above. Weltmann does not teach humidifying said carrier gas to at least 50%, 70% or 100% humidity.
Schneider teaches a plasma generating system with a gas having at least 50% or 100% humidity ([0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Weltmann to have 50-100% humidity as taught by Schneider, in order to optimize the plasma generation for disinfection as taught by Schneider with no unexpected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While Weltmann teaches a different type of system than the present invention (a hand sterilizer as opposed to an air stream in a duct system) this difference is not reflected in the current claims.
Regarding the argument that the present system teaches that a carrier gas is humidified before it is plasmatized, Weltmann teaches an embodiment of the system in which the aerosol generator (9), which as shown in figure 6 contains the humidifier (20), is connected to the system at the input of the plasma source rather than the outlet as shown in figure 2. Alternately the aerosol generator could be connected at both the inlet and outlet of the plasma source as shown in figure 3, which would allow humidifying of the plasma stream exiting the system as described by Weltmann but would also mean that humidified aerosol gas enters the plasma mixer at the input. Therefore the current independent claims do not distinguish over Weltmann as argued above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached on 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881