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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response filed 2/23/2026 has entered prosecution.
Claims 1,3,5 and 9-10 are pending prosecution.
Applicant’s amendment necessitates the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/25/2026.
Claims 1,3,5 and 9-10 are pending prosecution.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X. Z. Huang et al, “Plasmonic Ag nanoparticles via environment-benign atmospheric microplasma electrochemistry”. Nanotechnology, 2013, 24, 095604 in view of Eden (US 20180333511 A1) further in view of Fuller (US 20190116657 A1) with evidentiary reference of CTS Resistors 770 Series Datasheet.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-10, Huang teaches a method for forming Ag nanoparticles using atmospheric pressure microplasma-assisted electrochemistry (abstract). Below in Panel A is Fig. 1 of Huang. Huang teaches a Pt electrode is placed in a reaction cell containing AgNO3 and fructose in DI water (Section 2. Experimental details). Huang teaches that in the circuitry of the connection between the first and second electrode there is a 100 kOhm resistor and a DC power supply (see Fig. 1 as provided below). Huang teaches that a stainless-steel capillary tube is placed above a reaction volume, and that the tube is coupled to a Helium gas flow (Section 2. Experimental details). The stainless-steel capillary tube acts as a cathode (that is, as a second electrode) while the Pt foil submerged in the electrolyte works as an anode (that is, as a first electrode) both of which are coupled to a DC power supply. Application of 2 kV bias causes ignition to make the microplasma (Section 2. Experimental details).
However, Huang does not teach that the microplasma source is in the form of an array. Huang also does not teach that the microplasma device comprises: a voltage and current control device comprising a resistor module; a heat dissipation module nor a circuit board with a plurality of pins corresponding to each of the resistors.
Eden teaches a microchannel plasma device with an array of electrodes to guide the plasma jets toward a surface (Abstract).
Below in Panel B is Fig. 1G of Eden. Eden teaches that a microplasma device has a feed air (supply gas) that is fed to a diffuser which apportions gas equally among the microchannels [0035]. The microchannels guide incoming gas, supports the conversion to plasma by the action of an array of electrodes in the microchannel device, and allows the plasma to be guided from the outer surface of the microchannel arrays [0035]. Eden teaches that the microchannel array can be a 9x9 array [0036]. Eden teaches that the use of the diffuser plate minimizes turbulence and directs gas equally between the microchannels [0051].
PNG
media_image1.png
492
1139
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fuller teaches a thermally enhanced printed circuit board architecture [abstract].
Fuller teaches that a PCB mount with a thermally conductive layer (for heat dissipation) and a surface mounted power resistor experiences a lower operating temperature than a PCB with a surface mounted power resistor that does not feature a thermally conductive layer [0029]. Fuller teaches that the thermally conductive layer allows for heat dissipation away from the surface mount power resistors [0027], such that it is understood that the conductive layer is clamping a plurality of resistors. However, Barring a demonstration of criticality, it is understood that the surface mounted power resistor on the PCB with thermally conductive layer disclosed by Fuller demonstrates a heat dissipation module that “clamps” the resistor module (the power resistor) as the courts have broadly held that changes in shape is matter of choice and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Provided below is an image of circuit diagrams of CTS 770 series power resistor modules. Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the power resistor of Fuller would be a resistor module comprising multiple resistors in parallel.
PNG
media_image2.png
219
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the microplasma microchannel multi-array arrangement of Eden could be substituted for the single channel capillary tube in the base microplasma device of Huang, in order that one would arrive at a microplasma device with a diffuser plate and a multi-microchannel array which minimizes gas turbulence during the plasma derived synthesis of Ag nanomaterials (see MPEP 2143 I B). Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that that the resistor element in the microplasma device of Huang as modified by Eden could be substituted for the surface mounted power resistor on a PCB with thermally conductive layer of Fuller in order that one would arrive at a microplasma device with improved thermal control in the circuitry during operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the incorporation of the limitations in Claim 1 results from the precision engineering and unique architecture that differentiates the present apparatus against the prior art. Applicant further argues that neither Huang nor Eden alone nor as a combination address the problem of energy dilution across a multichannel diffuser plate which applicant claims to be solving. Applicant’s argument that the diffuser plate in conjunction with the electrical components for generating the plasma produce unexpected results. This is not compelling as can clearly be seen from applicant’s written support and the schematic depiction (see instant specification [0023-0025] and Fig. 2, provided below), the microplasma source is ordinary in appearance and function, and comprises similar structure as that disclosed by Eden (see the Fig. 1G provided in the body of the rejection). In the present case, the provided prior art in the rejection above addresses all the elements and teaches to the same structure of applicant’s system as claimed. Applicant’s argument on the nature of the evenness of the plasma production is neither compelling nor commensurate with the elements presently claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
803
429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
279
294
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, applicant Claims Fuller and the CTS 770 resistor module have no reason to be combined with Eden and Huang to arrive at the present invention. This is a piecemeal analysis on the rejection which had been laid forth in the previous office action. As stated above, Fuller and the CTS 770 module teach the need for improved thermal management of the circuitry into the apparatus of Huang in view of Eden is rational and provides good motivation to be added to the microplasma system of Huang in view of Eden which teaches the use of resistors in the circuitry. Accordingly, it would be rational and obvious for one of ordinary skill to have attempted this combination as a matter of simple substitution, which is a broadly upheld KSR supported rationale (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20140110380 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759