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 with traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination can be made without serous burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of Group I and Group II are drawn into different classes and each invention requires a different field of search. Applicants’ attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements, which introduces additional search and examination burden. Applicants’ arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive in so far as the searches are not co-extensive and additional.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 7 is withdrawn.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al (PG-PUB US 2011/0274583).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi et al disclose a sterilization device (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a plasma generator 16 for generating NOx by using air (i.e., an NOx generating unit … produce a plasma to generated nitrogen oxide, Figure 2, paragraphs [0039] –[0041]);
(2) an ozonizer for generating ozone by using air (i.e., an ozone generating unit … to produce a plasma to generate ozone, Figure 2, paragraph [0035]); and
(3) a chamber 2 for mixing NOx from the plasma generator 16 and ozone from the ozonizer to generate dinitrogen pentoxide in the chamber 2 (i.e., a mixing unit … to generate dinitrogen pentoxide, Figure 2, paragraph [0035]).
It should be noted that the recitation of “as a raw gas material, a/the gas containing nitrogen and oxygen” is material worked upon the device, which does not limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 2, the claimed temperatures are process-limiting parameters, which do not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi teaches a gas drying means D coupled to an air inlet port A for supplying dry air and a humidifying apparatus 10 for controlling the humidity within the chamber 2 (Figure 2, paragraphs [0034] & [0039]).
It should be noted that the limitation of “the gas containing nitrogen and oxygen … to supply the gas … to the NOx generating unit and the ozone generating unit” is material worked upon the device, which does not limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115)
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi teaches that the chamber 2 includes a conduit for supplying generated NOx from the plasma generator 16, a conduit for supplying ozone from the ozonizer, and an exhaust conduit for discharging exhaust gas (Figure 2, paragraphs [0035] & [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, the recitation is related to a manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Also, “a liquid” is material worked upon the device which does not further limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 6, “the predetermined time…” is not a structural limitation, rather a process-limiting parameter, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 are rejected, Claim 7 is withdrawn.
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
Prosecution Insights