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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 27-32 in the reply filed on August 27, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 47-58 that depend from claim 27 are new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “blow-down branch” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. NOTE: consider amending to include a reference character in Fig. 6 for the limitation “blow-down branch.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “75” has been used to designate both “coagulated contaminant particles 75” and “least one capacitor plate 75.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “said energizing arrangement” in claim 27. Whereas, claim 27 fails to recite structural features for the limitation, and instead, describes a group of results in lines 13-16. NOTE: If the structural features recited in lines 9-12 are the intended structural features for “said energizing arrangement”, then consider amending “said energizing arrangement” in line 13 to include those features.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 27-32 and 47-58 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.
The Markush grouping of claims 27, 32, 57, and 58 contain the phrase “any combination thereof,” and the language in the claims, i.e., “the group consisting of,” excludes unlisted items. Reciting the phrase “any combination thereof,” instead of combinations thereof no longer provides for a closed group—making the scope ambiguous and the Markush grouping improper. Claims 27, 32, 57, and 58 are indefinite.
Claims 29, 50, and 51 recite the phrase “timely modulated” in lines 3, 4, and 2, respectively. The subjective modifier “timely” introduces ambiguity and fails to provide a measurable standard. The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. Therefore, claims 29, 50, and 51 are indefinite.
Claim 54 recites the phrase "embraces at least a part of said waste fluid flow" in line 2. The term "embraces" is unclear regarding a structural relationship with the limitation “at least a part of said waste fluid flow." Amend the "embraces" with a more precise term in context and associated with the structural components defined in the claim.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "said contaminant particles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "contaminant particles" was not previously recited.
Claim 47 recites the phrase "at least partially charged and neutralized downstream said flow in proximity of said energizing arrangement" in lines 2-3. The term "at least partially charged" is ambiguous and fails to indicate boundaries for accomplishing a partially charged waste fluid. The language "in proximity of said energizing arrangement" is also ambiguous and fails to specify an objective boundary in relationship with a structural component for said energizing arrangement. Furthermore, a relative point of reference associated with said flow is not identified in the claim to distinguish that which is downstream and raise the question—downstream from which structural component in the flow?
Claims 31, 53, and 56, which depend from claim 27, recite the limitation "said flue duct" in lines 1, 2, or 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The limitation "a flue duct" was not previously recited.
Claim 49, which depend from claim 27, recites the limitation "said at least one second electrode" in lines 2, 4, and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "at least one second electrode" was not previously recited.
Claims 28, 30-32, 48, 52, 55 and 58 that depend from rejected base claim 27 also stand rejected.
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) 27-30, 47-48, 50-52, and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cullumber (US 5729564 A).
For claim 27, Cullumber discloses an electric discharge plasma device for treating waste fluid comprising:
a. at least one optical arrangement (Fig. 1) further comprising at least one laser source (gas discharge laser 10) configured for generating a laser radiation beam propagatable into a flow of said waste fluid (col. 1, ll. 5-10; col. 3, ll. 15-40) and a laser beam distributor configured for spatiotemporally distributing said laser radiation beam within said flow such that a cloud of ionized gases containing electrically charged particles is created (col. 1, ll. 12-20; col. 3, ll. 35-40);
b. an energizing arrangement selected from the group consisting of at least one first electrode (col. 2, ll. 1-20; col. 3, ll. 14-25) being in electric contact with said cloud and carrying a voltage potential (main electrodes 16, 18; Figs. 1, 7; col. 3, ll. 19-25; col. 5, ll. 33-46), at least one electric coil configured for creating a magnetic field within said cloud, at least one capacitor plate configured for creating an electrostatic field within said cloud and any combination thereof;
said energizing arrangement is configured for transferring energy to said cloud of ionized gases containing electrically charged particles such that a product selected from the group consisting of: an ionized gas (“laser gas”), an oxidized contaminant, an ozone gas and any combination thereof is generated (col. 3, ll. 20-25).
For claim 28, Cullumber is relied upon and discloses further wherein said energizing arrangement comprises at least one second electrode (main electrodes 16, 18; Figs. 1, 7; col. 3, ll. 20-25; col. 5, ll. 33-46) carrying a high voltage potential opposite said at least one first electrode (main electrodes 16, 18; col. 5, ll. 38-40; col. 5, ll. 33-46).
For claims 29 and 50-51, Cullumber is relied upon here within. The phrases “a. strength of said magnetic field and direction thereof are timely modulated; and b. strength of said electrostatic field and direction thereof are timely modulated” are intended results/use. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
For claim 30, Cullumber is relied upon and discloses further wherein said flow of waste fluid is conducted within a flue duct defined by a wall thereof (Figs. 1, 7; col. 3, ll. 25-35; col. 5, ll. 33-46).
For claim 47, Cullumber is relied upon and discloses further wherein contaminant particles of said waste fluid within said cloud of charged gases are at least partially charged and neutralized downstream said flow in proximity of said energizing arrangement; said neutralized contaminant particles are spontaneously coagulated and gravitationally droppable from said waste fluid (Figs. 4-6).
For claim 48, Cullumber is relied upon and discloses further wherein said energizing arrangement comprises at least one second electrode carrying an electric potential opposite said at least one first electrode (col. 5, ll. 38-40).
For claim 52, Cullumber is relied upon and discloses further wherein said flow of waste fluid is conducted within a flue duct defined by a wall thereof (Figs. 1, 7; col. 3, ll. 25-35; col. 5, ll. 33-46).
For claim 54, Cullumber is relied upon and discloses further wherein at least one of said first and second electrodes embraces at least a part of said waste fluid flow (col. 2, ll. 1-20; col. 3, ll. 15-25; col. 5, ll. 33-46; Figs. 1, 7).
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.
Claim(s) 31-32, 49, and 56-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullumber (US 5729564 A) in view of Tsuji (JP 2003243200 A).
For claims 31 and 56, Cullumber discloses the plasma device according to claim 27 and further teaches said at least one optical arrangement. Cullumber does not appear to disclose said at least one optical arrangement is mounted outside said flue duct such that said laser radiation beam distributed by said laser beam distributor propagates into said flue duct via an aperture within said wall. Tsuji is analogous art and does teach at least one optical arrangement is mounted outside said flue duct (Fig. 1; Abstract; par [0013]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the at least one optical arrangement of Tsuji in the plasma device of Cullumber to efficiently generate photoelectrons as taught in Tsuji.
For claims 32 and 57-58, Cullumber discloses the plasma device according to claim 27. Cullumber does not appear to disclose explicitly said laser beam distributor as claimed. Tsuji is analogous art and does teach a laser beam distributor wherein at least one of the following is true: a. a laser beam distributor is a laser beam scanner selected from the group consisting of a mechanical mirror scanner, a Risley prism scanner, a lens scanner, an acousto-optical deflector and any combination thereof or b. a laser beam distributor is a diffraction optical element selected from the group consisting of a multi-order diffractive lens, a multi-order diffraction grating, a computer-generated holographic optical element and any combination thereof (par 0013). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the laser beam distributor of Tsuji in the plasma device of Cullumber to efficiently generate photoelectrons as taught in Tsuji.
For claim 49, Cullumber discloses the plasma device according to claim 27. Cullumber does not appear to disclose explicitly wherein said at least one first electrode is connected to a negative terminal of a power supply, said at least one second electrode is connected to a positive terminal of said power supply. Tsuji is analogous art and does teach these features (positive electrode 2 and negative electrode 3; power supply 10; Fig. 1; Abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include power supply connections as taught in Tsuji for the plasma device of Cullumber to efficiently generate photoelectrons as taught in Tsuji. The phrase “said contaminant particles negatively charged in proximity of said first electrode and flowing downstream to said at least one second electrode are electrically neutralized in proximity of said at least second electrode and spontaneously coagulated thereafter” is an intended result/use. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Nonetheless, the combined teaching of the prior art references discloses the intended result. See Cullumber col. 4, ll. 20-40.
Clam 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullumber (US 5729564 A) in view of Scoot (US 3653185 A)
For claim 53, Cullumber discloses the plasma device according to claim 27. Cullumber does not appear to disclose explicitly wherein said flue duct comprises a blow-down branch being in communication with a hopper. Scott is analogous art and discloses an air treatment chamber (Fig. 1) having a blow-down branch (suitable duct 18). Scott discloses that once the deposited material is dislodged from the electrode, it can be collected in a hopper and removed periodically (col. 9, ll. 38-45). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to combined the teaching of Scott with the device of Cullumber to remove particles from the device for efficacy with a reasonable expectation of success.
Clam 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullumber (US 5729564 A).
For claim 55, Cullumber discloses the plasma device according to claim 27. Cullumber does not appear to disclose explicitly at least one turbulator configured for converting a laminar flow of waste fluid into a turbulent flow of waste fluid; however, Cullumber teaches a progressively increase in flow channel width (col. 4, ll. 45-49). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to envisage that an increase in the flow channel width, or an expansion, would cause a turbulent flow since expansion transitions laminar flow toward turbulence in ducts and pipes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3232046 A: an anode of cylindrical shape and a cathode made of refractory metal are arranged within a uniform longitudinal magnetic field.
US 4369514 A: a recombination laser comprises a resonant laser cavity, a gaseous laser material disposed in the cavity, and means for providing a plasma discharge in said laser material.
US 4397823 A: a process for removing a pollutant from a gas stream comprising exposing the stream to laser radiation.
WO 8402049 A1: an ionized-gas generating method arranged to flow from an exhaust port into a region where at least one of an electrical field and a magnetic field is produced.
US 5316970 A: a method for generating contamination-free ionized air for discharging an object comprising: illuminating a region of the air with radiation
US 20030079606 A1: a method for removing elemental mercury from an exhaust comprising the steps of: photoionizing elemental mercury in an exhaust to form ionized mercury atoms; and electrostatically precipitating the ionized mercury atoms from the exhaust.
US 6603790 B1: a gas laser and a dedusting unit; the gas laser comprises a tube including a laser gas, a cylindrical inner wall, and a discharge unit has two elongated electrodes defining an electrical gas discharge gap therebetween for providing an electric gas discharge and a laser light.
US 6730141 B2: a method for removing pollutants contained in the air ionized by the action of optical radiation; the ionized pollutants are removed from the air using an electric field
US 20190308202 A1: a gas cleaning systems using electrostatic precipitators and photoionization.
US 20250192503 A1: a system comprising, a flow chamber having an entry aperture and an exit aperture; a laser positioned in operative alignment to produce a laser beam that enters the entry aperture and exits the exit aperture; a focusing lens operatively positioned to focus the laser beam through the entry aperture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 September 12, 2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776