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 .
This is a response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 29, 2025. Claims 15 and 18 have been amended. Withdrawn claims 5-8 and 10-14 have been cancelled. Claims 21-31 have been added. Claims 1-4, 9 and 15-31 are pending in the application. Claims 1-4 and 9 have been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Response to Amendment
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) of Claim 18 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103 of Claims 15-20 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: language inconsistency.
Claim 25 recites: “A method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising: passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising a static electric field along a length of the airflow path, the static electric field having a voltage of about 6 kilovolts or greater, the air becoming ionized and forming a plasma field along the length, wherein pathogens within the air are destroyed upon passing through the plasma field; wherein the device comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the electric field being between the first electrode and the second electrode…” Language consistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 25 as reciting: “A method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising: passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising a static electric field along a length of the airflow path, the static electric field having a voltage of about 6 kilovolts or greater, the air becoming ionized and forming a plasma field along the length, wherein pathogens within the air are destroyed upon passing through the plasma field; wherein the device comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the static electric field being between the first electrode and the second electrode…”
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect preposition.
Claim 29 recites: “A method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising: passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising an electric field along a length of the airflow path…” The correct preposition should be “an” instead of “a”.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 29 as reciting: “A method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising: passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising an electric field along a length of the airflow path…”
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 15-31 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 15 recites: “A method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising: passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising an electric field along a length of the airflow path, the electric field having a voltage of about 6 kilovolts or greater, the air becoming ionized and forming a plasma field along the length, wherein pathogens within the air are destroyed upon passing through the plasma field; wherein the device comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the first electrode comprising a corona wire, the electric field being between the first electrode and the second electrode.”
This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear how the device’s structural limitations (first and second electrodes) are linked into the method for destroying an airborne pathogen. It is unclear how the first and second electrodes are arranged such that a plasma field is formed along the length. Further, it is unclear as to how the airflow path relates to the arrangement of the two electrodes, since there are many different ways to interpret the arrangement. Furthermore, since the claims being examined are method claims, the first and second electrodes of the device, as claimed, are not given patentable weight.
Claim 25 recites: “A method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising: passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising a static electric field along a length of the airflow path, the static electric field having a voltage of about 6 kilovolts or greater, the air becoming ionized and forming a plasma field along the length, wherein pathogens within the air are destroyed upon passing through the plasma field; wherein the device comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the static electric field being between the first electrode and the second electrode…”
This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear how the device’s structural limitations (first and second electrodes) are linked into the method for destroying an airborne pathogen. It is unclear how the first and second electrodes are arranged such that a plasma field is formed along the length. Further, it is unclear as to how the airflow path relates to the arrangement of the two electrodes, since there are many different ways to interpret the arrangement. Furthermore, since the claims being examined are method claims, the first and second electrodes of the device, as claimed, are not given patentable weight.
Claim 29 recites: “A method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising: passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising an electric field along a length of the airflow path, the electric field having a voltage of about 6 kilovolts or greater, the air becoming ionized and forming a plasma field along the length, wherein pathogens within the air are destroyed upon passing through the plasma field; wherein the device comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the electric field being between the first electrode and the second electrode…”
This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear how the device’s structural limitations (first and second electrodes) are linked into the method for destroying an airborne pathogen. It is unclear how the first and second electrodes are arranged such that a plasma field is formed along the length. Further, it is unclear as to how the airflow path relates to the arrangement of the two electrodes, since there are many different ways to interpret the arrangement. Furthermore, since the claims being examined are method claims, the first and second electrodes of the device, as claimed, are not given patentable weight.
Claims 16-24, 26-28 and 30-31 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims 15, 25 and 29, respectively.
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 15-16 and 20-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg et al. (US Pat. No. 6,042,637, hereinafter Weinberg).
In regards to Claim 15, Weinberg discloses a method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising:
passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising an electric field along a length of the airflow path, the electric field having a voltage of about 6 kilovolts or greater, the air becoming ionized and forming a plasma field along the length, wherein pathogens within the air are destroyed upon passing through the plasma field, wherein the device comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the first electrode comprising a corona wire, the electric field being between the first electrode and the second electrode (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 14-60; Weinberg discloses an air purifier comprises an opening #23 covered by a metallic grid #24, i.e. second electrode, through which the purified air exits. A metallic needle-like emitter point #26, i.e. first electrode, is mounted on a high voltage circuit module #32 and located about ¼ inch below the metallic grid, i.e. second electrode. In use, air near the emitter point #26, i.e. first electrode, becomes ionized by a corona charge developed by a high voltage of about 8kV supplied by the high voltage circuit module #32. The metallic grid #24, i.e. second electrode, is held at a ground potential relative to the emitter point #26 so that ions produced in the corona discharge are accelerated towards the metallic grid #24, i.e. second electrode. This results in a mass flow of air (i.e. ionized molecules pull along a large number of nonionized molecules by means of cohesive forces) which propels the purified air out through openings in the metallic grid #24. As purified air exits and is propelled towards the face of the wearer, room air (dotted arrows) is drawn in at the sides of the opening #23. At the same time the corona discharge provides ionizing energy and ozone to chemically destroy pollutants or pathogens through electron (plasma) impact decomposition.).
Weinberg discloses that it is it is important to adjust the rate of air movement through the corona discharge to obtain optimum destruction of pollutants. If the air moves too rapidly, the pollutants do not spend sufficient time in the discharge to ensure their destruction. The rate of air movement is affected by the potential difference and the geometrical relationship between the emitter point #26 and the grid #24 (see column 5, lines 8-15).
Since Weinberg clear discloses the importance of adjusting the airflow rate through the corona discharge to obtain optimum destruction of pollutants, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the airflow rate of Weinberg to a rate of about 10 liters per minute, as claimed by the applicant, since the airflow rate is recognized as a result-effective variable which affects the destruction of pollutants within the device. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to Claim 16, Weinberg discloses the method as recited in claim 15. Although Weinberg does not explicitly disclose wherein nucleic acids of the pathogens are degraded upon passing through the plasma field, Weinberg discloses substantially the same method and substantially the same plasma field generated, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Weinberg’s device and method will reasonably execute in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would reasonably perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be reasonably met by the prior art device. See MPEP 2112.02.
In regards to Claim 20, Weinberg discloses wherein the air that is passed along the airflow path originates from or is delivered to a single user (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 53-55; Weinberg discloses that the purified air exits and is propelled towards the face of the wearer, i.e. airflow path is delivered to a single user.).
In regards to Claim 21, Weinberg discloses wherein the first electrode #26 is a single corona wire (see figure 1 and column 26-32).
In regards to Claim 22, Weinberg discloses wherein the length of the airflow path is surrounded by a wall, the second electrode #24 comprising a surface of the wall (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 26-53).
In regards to Claim 23, Weinberg discloses wherein the length of the airflow path is surrounded by a wall, the surrounding wall comprising a largest cross-sectional dimension of about 1 inch or less (see column 1, lines 46-52).
In regards to Claim 24, Weinberg discloses the length of the airflow path is a straight path free of corners and turns (see figure 1).
In regards to Claims 25-26, Weinberg discloses Weinberg discloses a method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising:
passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising a static electric field along a length of the airflow path, the static electric field having a voltage of about 6 kilovolts or greater, the air becoming ionized and forming a plasma field along the length, wherein pathogens within the air are destroyed upon passing through the plasma field, wherein the device comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the first electrode comprising a corona wire, the static electric field being between the first electrode and the second electrode (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 14-60; Weinberg discloses an air purifier comprises an opening #23 covered by a metallic grid #24, i.e. second electrode, through which the purified air exits. A metallic needle-like emitter point #26, i.e. first electrode, is mounted on a high voltage circuit module #32 and located about ¼ inch below the metallic grid, i.e. second electrode. In use, air near the emitter point #26, i.e. first electrode, becomes ionized by a corona charge developed by a high voltage of about 8kV supplied by the high voltage circuit module #32. The metallic grid #24, i.e. second electrode, is held at a ground potential relative to the emitter point #26 so that ions produced in the corona discharge are accelerated towards the metallic grid #24, i.e. second electrode. This results in a mass flow of air (i.e. ionized molecules pull along a large number of nonionized molecules by means of cohesive forces) which propels the purified air out through openings in the metallic grid #24. As purified air exits and is propelled towards the face of the wearer, room air (dotted arrows) is drawn in at the sides of the opening #23. At the same time the corona discharge provides ionizing energy and ozone to chemically destroy pollutants or pathogens through electron (plasma) impact decomposition.).
Weinberg discloses that it is it is important to adjust the rate of air movement through the corona discharge to obtain optimum destruction of pollutants. If the air moves too rapidly, the pollutants do not spend sufficient time in the discharge to ensure their destruction. The rate of air movement is affected by the potential difference and the geometrical relationship between the emitter point #26 and the grid #24 (see column 5, lines 8-15).
Since Weinberg clear discloses the importance of adjusting the airflow rate through the corona discharge to obtain optimum destruction of pollutants, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the airflow rate of Weinberg to a rate of about 10 liters per minute, as claimed by the applicant, since the airflow rate is recognized as a result-effective variable which affects the destruction of pollutants within the device. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to Claim 27, Weinberg discloses wherein the length of the airflow path is surrounded by a wall, the second electrode #24 comprising a surface of the wall (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 26-53).
In regards to Claim 28, Weinberg discloses wherein the length of the airflow path is surrounded by a wall, the surrounding wall comprising a largest cross-sectional dimension of about 1 inch or less (see column 1, lines 46-52).
In regards to Claim 29, Weinberg discloses Weinberg discloses a method for destroying an airborne pathogen, comprising:
passing air along an airflow path within a device at a rate of about 10 liters per minute or less, the airflow path comprising an electric field along a length of the airflow path, the electric field having a voltage of about 6 kilovolts or greater, the air becoming ionized and forming a plasma field along the length, wherein pathogens within the air are destroyed upon passing through the plasma field, wherein the device comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the first electrode comprising a corona wire, the electric field being between the first electrode and the second electrode (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 14-60; Weinberg discloses an air purifier comprises an opening #23 covered by a metallic grid #24, i.e. second electrode, through which the purified air exits. A metallic needle-like emitter point #26, i.e. first electrode, is mounted on a high voltage circuit module #32 and located about ¼ inch below the metallic grid, i.e. second electrode. In use, air near the emitter point #26, i.e. first electrode, becomes ionized by a corona charge developed by a high voltage of about 8kV supplied by the high voltage circuit module #32. The metallic grid #24, i.e. second electrode, is held at a ground potential relative to the emitter point #26 so that ions produced in the corona discharge are accelerated towards the metallic grid #24, i.e. second electrode. This results in a mass flow of air (i.e. ionized molecules pull along a large number of nonionized molecules by means of cohesive forces) which propels the purified air out through openings in the metallic grid #24. As purified air exits and is propelled towards the face of the wearer, room air (dotted arrows) is drawn in at the sides of the opening #23. At the same time the corona discharge provides ionizing energy and ozone to chemically destroy pollutants or pathogens through electron (plasma) impact decomposition.);
Weinberg discloses wherein the length of the airflow path is surrounded by a wall, the surrounding wall comprising a largest cross-sectional dimension of about 1 inch or less (see column 1, lines 46-52).
Weinberg discloses that it is it is important to adjust the rate of air movement through the corona discharge to obtain optimum destruction of pollutants. If the air moves too rapidly, the pollutants do not spend sufficient time in the discharge to ensure their destruction. The rate of air movement is affected by the potential difference and the geometrical relationship between the emitter point #26 and the grid #24 (see column 5, lines 8-15).
Since Weinberg clear discloses the importance of adjusting the airflow rate through the corona discharge to obtain optimum destruction of pollutants, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the airflow rate of Weinberg to a rate of about 10 liters per minute, as claimed by the applicant, since the airflow rate is recognized as a result-effective variable which affects the destruction of pollutants within the device. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to Claim 30, Weinberg discloses wherein the first electrode #26 is a corona wire (see figure 1 and column 26-32).
In regards to Claim 31, Weinberg discloses wherein the length of the airflow path is surrounded by a wall, the second electrode #24 comprising a surface of the wall (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 26-53).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg in view of Higashiyama et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0296715, hereinafter Higashiyama).
In regards to Claim 17, Weinberg discloses the method as recited in claim 15, but fails to disclose further modifying the flow rate of air through the airflow path.
However, Higashiyama teaches a method as to which a sterilizing device is used to generate plasma, reactive oxygen, and ozone, and the plasma is used for effecting sterilization (see paragraphs [0007] and [0010]). The sterilizing device includes a nozzle #10 which includes a plasma producing unit #11 for producing plasma, an outlet for discharging the sterilizing agent #70 containing the plasma. The plasma producing unit #11 includes an internal electrode #11a and an external electrode #11b. In the plasma producing unit #11, by an AC power source #20, a high voltage (e.g. effective voltage of 20kV) is applied between the internal electrode #11a and the external electrode #11b, whereby an electric filed is generated within the plasma producing unit #11, and into the plasma generating unit #11, a gas together with air, i.e. airflow path, is fed to pass this gas through the generated electric field, thus producing plasma i.e. plasma filed is generated (see paragraphs [0031]-[0033]). The gas supplying unit #30 is connected to the plasma producing unit #11 and supplies oxygen together with air, i.e. passing air along an airflow path within a device, to the nozzle #10 (plasma producing unit #11). The gas supplying unit #30 includes a control panel #31, and by operating the control panel #31, a supplying amount of air at 6L/min and oxygen at 3L/min (total supplying amount of air and oxygen is 9L/min) can be respectively sent to the nozzle #10 (plasma producing unit #11) (see paragraph [0041]).
Higashiyama further teaches that the sterilizing system #100 may be provided with an ozone meter and a supplied oxygen controlling unit for adjusting an amount of oxygen to be supplied to the gas supplying unit #30 based on the amount of ozone determined by the ozone meter. This is considered equivalent to further comprising modifying the flow rate of the air through the airflow path, as claimed by the applicant (see paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the method for destroying an airborne pathogen, as disclosed by Weinberg by further comprising modifying the flow rate of air through the airflow path, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Higashiyama teaches a method as to which a sterilizing device is used to generate plasma, reactive oxygen, and ozone, and the plasma is used for effecting sterilization, wherein the sterilizing device includes a nozzle which includes a plasma producing unit for producing plasma, an outlet for discharging the sterilizing agent containing the plasma, wherein the plasma producing unit includes an internal electrode and an external electrode, and in the plasma producing unit, by an AC power source, a high voltage (e.g. effective voltage of 20kV) is applied between the internal electrode and the external electrode, whereby an electric filed is generated within the plasma producing unit, and into the plasma generating unit, a gas together with air, i.e. airflow path, is fed to pass this gas through the generated electric field, thus producing plasma i.e. plasma filed is generated, wherein the gas supplying unit is connected to the plasma producing unit and supplies oxygen together with air, i.e. passing air along an airflow path within a device, to the nozzle (plasma producing unit), and the gas supplying unit includes a control panel, and by operating the control panel, a supplying amount of air at 6L/min and oxygen at 3L/min (total supplying amount of air and oxygen is 9L/min) can be respectively sent to the nozzle (plasma producing unit), and further the sterilizing device may be provided with an ozone meter and a supplied oxygen controlling unit for adjusting an amount of oxygen to be supplied to the gas supplying unit based on the amount of ozone determined by the ozone meter, so that sterilization can be effected in an even more efficient manner (see paragraphs [0007], [0010], [0031]-[0033], [0041] and [0055]).
In regards to Claim 18, Weinberg discloses the method as recited in claim 15, but fails to disclose further comprising monitoring one or more of an ozone level, a battery condition, or the flow rate of air through the airflow path in the device.
However, Higashiyama teaches a method as to which a sterilizing device is used to generate plasma, reactive oxygen, and ozone, and the plasma is used for effecting sterilization (see paragraphs [0007] and [0010]). The sterilizing device includes a nozzle #10 which includes a plasma producing unit #11 for producing plasma, an outlet for discharging the sterilizing agent #70 containing the plasma. The plasma producing unit #11 includes an internal electrode #11a and an external electrode #11b. In the plasma producing unit #11, by an AC power source #20, a high voltage (e.g. effective voltage of 20kV) is applied between the internal electrode #11a and the external electrode #11b, whereby an electric filed is generated within the plasma producing unit #11, and into the plasma generating unit #11, a gas together with air, i.e. airflow path, is fed to pass this gas through the generated electric field, thus producing plasma i.e. plasma filed is generated (see paragraphs [0031]-[0033]). The gas supplying unit #30 is connected to the plasma producing unit #11 and supplies oxygen together with air, i.e. passing air along an airflow path within a device, to the nozzle #10 (plasma producing unit #11). The gas supplying unit #30 includes a control panel #31, and by operating the control panel #31, a supplying amount of air at 6L/min and oxygen at 3L/min (total supplying amount of air and oxygen is 9L/min) can be respectively sent to the nozzle #10 (plasma producing unit #11) (see paragraph [0041]).
Higashiyama further teaches that the sterilizing system #100 may be provided with an ozone meter and a supplied oxygen controlling unit for adjusting an amount of oxygen to be supplied to the gas supplying unit #30 based on the amount of ozone determined by the ozone meter (see paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the method for destroying an airborne pathogen, as disclosed by Weinberg by further monitoring one or more of an ozone level, a battery condition, or the flow rate in the device, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Higashiyama teaches a method as to which a sterilizing device is used to generate plasma, reactive oxygen, and ozone, and the plasma is used for effecting sterilization, wherein the sterilizing device includes a nozzle which includes a plasma producing unit for producing plasma, an outlet for discharging the sterilizing agent containing the plasma, wherein the plasma producing unit includes an internal electrode and an external electrode, and in the plasma producing unit, by an AC power source, a high voltage (e.g. effective voltage of 20kV) is applied between the internal electrode and the external electrode, whereby an electric filed is generated within the plasma producing unit, and into the plasma generating unit, a gas together with air, i.e. airflow path, is fed to pass this gas through the generated electric field, thus producing plasma i.e. plasma filed is generated, wherein the gas supplying unit is connected to the plasma producing unit and supplies oxygen together with air, i.e. passing air along an airflow path within a device, to the nozzle (plasma producing unit), and the gas supplying unit includes a control panel, and by operating the control panel, a supplying amount of air at 6L/min and oxygen at 3L/min (total supplying amount of air and oxygen is 9L/min) can be respectively sent to the nozzle #10 (plasma producing unit), wherein the sterilizing system may be provided with an ozone meter and a supplied oxygen controlling unit for adjusting an amount of the oxygen to be supplied by the gas supplying unit based on the amount of ozone determined by the ozone meter, so that sterilization can be effected in an even more efficient manner (see paragraph [0055]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg, in view of Gamache et al. (WO2021/189150A1, rejection relied on US equivalent Patent Pub. No. 2023/0142973, hereinafter Gamache).
In regards to Claim 19, Weinberg discloses the method as recited in claim 15, but fails to disclose further comprising attaching the device to a breathing mask, a hood, a face shield, or a ventilator, wherein the air that is passed along the airflow path originates from or is delivered to a single user.
However, Gamache teaches a system that includes a mask and device for treating potentially contaminated air and method for treating air prior to inhalation by a user (see paragraph [0003]). The device for treating contaminated air for inhalation by a user comprises an inhalation treatment unit for treating air to be inhaled by the user comprising a pressurized air intake section configured to receive and pressurize the contaminated air, a plasma reactor section in fluid communication with the pressurized air intake section comprising a plasma chamber comprising a gas flow path allow a flow of the pressurized air to flow therethrough, and a plasma generator configured to apply a plasma-generated field across the plasma chamber intersecting the flow of the pressurized air to generate a plasma therefrom, thereby producing a plasma treated stream that include plasma-generated compounds, a feed inlet for supplying the treated air, and a mask coupled to the feed inlet for receiving the treated air for inhalation by the user (see paragraphs [0038]-[0045] and [0114]). This is considered equivalent to comprising attaching the device to a breathing mask, a hood, a face shield, or a ventilator, wherein the air that is passed along the airflow path originates from or is delivered to a single user, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the method for destroying an airborne pathogen as disclosed by Weinberg, by further comprising attaching the device to a breathing mask, a hood, a face shield, or a ventilator, wherein the air that is passed along the airflow path originates from or is delivered to a single user, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Gamache teaches a system that includes a mask and device for treating potentially contaminated air and method for treating air prior to inhalation by a user, wherein the device for treating contaminated air for inhalation by a user comprises an inhalation treatment unit for treating air to be inhaled by the user comprising a pressurized air intake section configured to receive and pressurize the contaminated air, a plasma reactor section in fluid communication with the pressurized air intake section comprising a plasma chamber comprising a gas flow path allow a flow of the pressurized air to flow therethrough, and a plasma generator configured to apply a plasma-generated field across the plasma chamber intersecting the flow of the pressurized air to generate a plasma therefrom, thereby producing a plasma treated stream that include plasma-generated compounds, a feed inlet for supplying the treated air, and a mask coupled to the feed inlet for receiving the treated air for inhalation by the user, thereby obtaining a system with efficient treatment systems to remove pathogens from air prior to be inhaled by a user (see paragraphs [0038]-[0045] and [0114]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Taylor have been considered but are moot because Taylor is no longer used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774