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 § 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 1-26 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 the limitation "the bottom surface of the first electrode surfaces and is separated" in line 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (e.g., the first electrode surfaces) in the claim. Also, it is not clear what “and is separated” is regarded. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as "the bottom surface of the first electrode is separated"
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-26 are rejected
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the inverter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “the first and second electrodes are formed … and arranged into a double helix structure around the dielectric surface”.
Claim 1 requires (i) “the second electrode opposing the first electrode such that the bottom surface of the first electrode is separated from the top surface of the second electrode by a space” AND (ii) “a dielectric layer that defines a surface that is disposed in at least a part of the space between the bottom surface of the first electrode and the top surface of the second electrode”. That is, claim 1 defines two electrodes (i.e., a first electrode and a second electrode) that are separated by a space therebetween by opposing each other around the two opposing surfaces/sies of a dielectric layer.
However, claim 8, depending upon claim1, recites the two electrodes arranged into a double helix around the dielectric surface, which requires the two electrodes of the double helix on the same surface/side of the dielectric layer.
Therefore, it is not clear how the two electrode in a form of a double helix being arranged around the same surface/side of the dielectric layer while forming a space therebetween by opposing each other around the different surfaces/sides of the dielectric layer . Appropriate clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 9-17 are rejected
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 18-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyazaki et al (WO 2022/265007, see attached English translation, NOTE: PCT application with the prior filling date of June 14, 2021).
Regarding claim 1,Miyazaki et al disclose a plasma generator (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a first electrode 16a made of a plate (i.e., a first electrode …, Figures 1-3, and 8-10, Embodiment 2);
(2) a second electrode 16b made of a plate (i.e. a second electrode …, Figures 1-3, and 8-10, Embodiment 2);
(3) a dielectric layer 14 provided a space between opposing surfaces of the first electrode 16a and the second electrode 16b, wherein the dielectric layer 14 is made of a glass tube having a thickness of 2 mm (i.e., a dielectric layer …, Figures 1-3, and 8-10, Embodiments 1 & 2);
(4) a power supply unit 20 for applying a predetermined voltage to the electrodes to generate stable plasma (i.e., a power supply …, Figure 4, Embodiment 1);
(5) a duct D for a communication path to the space between the electrodes (i.e., a duct …, Figures 8-10, Embodiment 2); and
(6) an annular space A for accepting liquid to be treated by the reactive species generated from the plasma (i.e., a channel …, Figures 8-10, Embodiment 2).
The relative permittivity of glass is between 4 to10.
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki teaches that the power supplying unit 20 outputs an AC voltage controlled according to the input voltage with appropriate selection to generate plasma (Figure 4, Embodiment 1).
Regarding claims 3-6, Miyazaki teaches that the power supplying unit 20 comprises an inverter 22 for outputting AC voltage of according to the input DC voltage (Figures 4 & 6, Embodiment 1). Since the device of Miyazaki comprises substantially the same structures as claimed, it is fully capable of supplying the claimed voltage and frequency.
Regarding claim 7, Miyazaki teaches that the dielectric layer 14 is in a form of a cylinder/pipe (Figures 1, 8-10, Embodiments 1 & 2).
Regarding 18, Miyazaki teaches that the first electrode 16a and the second electrode 16b are in a form of a cylinder/pipe (Figures 1, 8-10, Embodiments 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 19, Miyazaki teaches that the first electrode 16a, the dielectric layer 14, and the second electrode 16b are concentrically arranged with respect to each other (Figures 1, 8-10, Embodiments 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 20. Miyazaki teaches that at least two dielectric layers 14 are provided on the opposing sides of the electrodes (Figure 3, Embodiment 1)
Regarding claim 21, Miyazaki teaches that the first electrode 16a and the second electrode 16b are made of plates and the at least two dielectric layers are provided on the opposing sides of the electrodes (Figure 3, Embodiment 1).
Regarding claim 22, Miyazaki teaches that the dielectric layer 14 is made of a glass having a thickness of 2 mm (Figures 1-3, and 8-10, Embodiments 1 & 2). The relative permittivity of glass is between 4 to10.
Regarding claim 25, Miyazaki teaches a plasma generating region P (Figures 1-3, & 8-10, Embodiments 1 & 2).
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 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2022/265007) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Bortkiewicz (PG-PUB US 2005/0143726).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Miyazaki teaches that the dielectric layer 14 is made of a glass having a thickness of 2 mm and the dielectric layer 14 can be formed by selecting an appropriate material in consideration of workability and required dielectric constant (Figures 1-3, and 8-10, Embodiments 1 & 2), but does not specifically teach the thickness of the dielectric layer less than 1 mm with the dielectric constant (i.e., relative permittivity) in a range of 15 to 500.
However, Bortkiewicz discloses a plasma generator (ABSTRACT & paragraph [0008]). Bortkiewicz teaches that a dielectric barrier discharge is generated by utilizing a dielectric dis 210 having a thickness of 0.125 mm (or 25 mil to 60 mil) and a dielectric constant 200 (or in a range of 100 to 1000, paragraphs [0033], & [0050]). Bortkiewicz further indicates that utilization of dielectric material with high dielectric constant has high electrical isolation to limit voltage breakdown and generates stable discharge with even energy distribution (paragraphs [0018], & [0035]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a dielectric material having a thickness of 25 mil to 60 mil with a dielectric constant in a range of 100 to 1000 as suggested by Bortkiewicz in order to generate stable discharge/plasma with even energy distribution within the device of Miyazaki.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2022/265007) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Bortkiewicz (PG-PUB US 2005/0143726).
Regarding claim 26, Miyazaki teaches that the plasma generator can be used to treat liquid by introducing the liquid into the annular space A to mix with active oxygen species (Figure 10, Embodiment 2), but does not teach an aspirator for mixing the active species with the liquid.
However. Medvedev discloses a plasma generator for treating liquid (ABSTRACT). Medvedev teaches that a pump of a venturi injector (e.g., an aspirator) is used to generate pressure for introducing liquid to the plasma reactor (Figures 1-2, col. 3, line 35-45, & col. 5, line 8-19).
Therefore, it would be for one having ordinary skill in the art to include a pump or a venturi injector as suggested by Medvedev in order to generate pressure for introducing liquid to the device of Miyazaki.
It should be noted that “an aspirator” does not recite any structural limitation and will be interpreted as “a structure/unit for providing suction force”. The pump or the venturi injection of Medvedev is a structure for providing suction force, reading on “an aspirator”.
Conclusion
Claims 1-26 are rejected.
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