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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Group II … incorporates all of the features … of claim 1”. This is not found persuasive because the restriction was based on lack of unity where there is no unity between the groups as discussed in paragraph 4 on pp. 3-4 of the restriction mailed 10/01/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/21/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/21/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein, specifically Foreign patent document #1, has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 11 of Claim 1, insert --high voltage-- before “output terminal”;
in line 3 of Claim 2, insert --dielectric-- before “tubular portion”;
in line 3 of Claim 3, insert --elongate-- before “funnel”;
in line 4 of Claim 3, insert --at least one-- before “fan”
in line 5 of Claim 3, insert --elongate-- before “funnel”;
in line 7 of Claim 3, insert --elongate-- before “exit opening”;
in line 8 of Claim 3,
insert --elongate exit-- before “opening”,
insert --dielectric-- before “tubular”;
in line 2 of Claim 5, delete “50cm” and insert --50 cm--.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
In Claim 17, it is not clear to which parent claim the current claim depends on as it is not possible to dependent on itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10, 12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nelson (WO2018005715).
As to Claim 1, Nelson (‘715) discloses a plasma source (50; 50a) capable of generating a disinfecting and/or sterilizing gas mixture (see Figures 1-2A), including:
- an ionization chamber (70) having:
- a dielectric tubular portion (72, 74) (see Figures 1-2A).
- an inflow port (i.e. where 40 connects/enters 50) for feeding a gas or gas mixture into the ionization chamber (70) (see Figure 1),
- an outflow ports (i.e. where 52 connects with 50) for exhausting the disinfecting and/or sterilizing gas mixture out of the ionization chamber (70) (see Figure 1),
- a first electrode (80) is positioned inside the dielectric tubular portion (72, 74) (see Figure 2A), and
- a second electrode (82) is positioned outside the dielectric tubular portion (72, 74) (see Figure 2A);
- a high voltage source having a high voltage output terminal, wherein an electrical conductor connects the high voltage output terminal to the first electrode (80) (i.e. implicitly disclosed so as to allow power to be supplied/transmitted from the source to a remotely located first electrode to produce plasma - see entire document, particularly p. 9 line 25 [0030], p. 10 line 4 [0032], p. 11 lines 13-15 [0038], p. 11 lines 33-35 [0041]); and
- a forced gas cooling system (fan - see entire document, particularly p. 11 [0037] - line 9) for cooling the ionization chamber (70).
As to Claim 6, Nelson (‘715) discloses that the second electrode (82) is an electrically conducting layer deposited onto an outer surface of the dielectric tubular portion (72) (see entire document, particularly Figure 2A, p. 11 [0037]-[0038]).
As to Claim 7, Nelson (‘715) discloses that the second electrode (82) is connected to electrical ground (see entire document, particularly p. 11 [0038] – line 3).
As to Claim 10, Nelson (‘715) discloses that the dielectric tubular portion (74) includes a glass (see entire document, particularly p. 11 [0037] – line 4).
As to Claim 12, the high voltage source (see entire document, particularly p. 9 line 25 [0030], p. 10 line 4 [0032], p. 11 lines 13-15 [0038], p. 11 [0041] lines 33-35 to p. 12 [0041] line 4) of Nelson (‘715) is capable of generating a high voltage and/or current within a relatively short time span of less than fifty milliseconds after startup.
As to Claim 19, the high voltage source (see entire document, particularly p. 9 line 25 [0030], p. 10 line 4 [0032], p. 11 lines 13-15 [0038], p. 11 [0041] lines 33-35 to p. 12 [0041] line 4) of Nelson (‘715) is capable of ramping up the high voltage and/or current at startup with an initial overshoot to initiate plasma creation, thereafter decreasing to a nominal operating value.
As to Claim 20, the initial overshoot in the plasma source of Nelson (‘715) is capable of being at least ten percent high than the nominal operating value.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (WO2018005715) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR100932102).
Nelson (‘715) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Nelson (‘715) does not appear to specifically teach that the forced gas cooling system is arranged for forcing a cooling gas flow onto the dielectric tubular portion in a direction substantially orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the tubular portion.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a forced gas cooling system arranged substantially orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of a plasma source. Kim (‘102) discloses a plasma device (see Figure 11) comprised of a plasma source (100) including ionization means (118) and a forced gas cooling system (120) for cooling the ionization means (118) arranged for forcing a cooling gas in a direction substantially orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the ionization means (see Figure 11) in order to cool the heat generated during the ionization/discharge process (see English translation, particularly p. 5 lines 18-19, p. 6 lines 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a forced gas cooling system substantially orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the plasma source of Nelson as a known configuration in order to cool the heat generated by the ionization/discharge process as shown by Kim.
Thus, Claim 2 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Nelson (‘715) and Kim (‘102).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (WO2018005715).
Nelson (‘715) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
While Nelson (‘715) does not appear to specifically teach that the forced gas cooling system includes a detector for detecting malfunction of the forced gas cooling system and arranged for shutting down or reducing power of the high voltage source when a malfunction is detected, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a detector with the forced gas cooling system of Nelson in order to ensure that the plasma source operates only when the forced gas cooling system is operational to avoid overheating that would cause deleterious operational conditions. Only the expected results would be attained.
Claim(s) 5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (WO2018005715) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imanishi (20150217013).
Nelson (‘715) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Nelson (‘715) does not appear to specifically teach that the electrical conductor is less than 50 cm, or less than 30 cm, or less than 20 cm, long.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electrical conductor connecting an output terminal of a high voltage source to a first electrode or a second electrode. Imanishi (‘013) discloses a plasma source (14) comprised of:
an ionization chamber (16) having:
an inflow port (i.e. where 18, 88 connects with 16) for feeding a gas or gas mixture into the ionization chamber (16),
an outflow port (i.e. where 25 connects with 16) for exhausting a gas mixture out of the ionization chamber (16); and
a high voltage source (12) having a high voltage terminal (i.e. where 40A and 40B are connected to 12) (see Figure 1), wherein an electrical conductor (40A, 40B) connects the high voltage terminal (i.e. where 40A and 40B are connected to 12) to the first electrode (26A) and the second electrode (26B) (See Figure 1);
in order to generate plasma (see entire document, particularly p. 3 [0030] – lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electrical conductor of appropriate length in the plasma source of Nelson in order to connect a remotely located power source to one or more electrodes so as to enable generation of plasma as shown by Imanishi.
While Imanishi (‘013) does not appear to specify what the length of the electrical conductor (40A, 40B) are, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any appropriate length, such as 50 cm long, or 30 cm long, or 20 cm long, for the electrical conductor in the plasma source of Nelson as a matter of engineering choice in order to enable the connection between the high voltage power source to the first electrode so as to supply power needed to generate plasma. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, Claims 5 and 16-17 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Nelson (‘715) and Imanishi (‘013).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (WO2018005715) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN102872716).
Nelson (‘715) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Nelson (‘715) does not appear to specifically teach that the plasma source includes a first end cap including the inflow port and closing the dielectric tubular portion at a first end, and a second end cap including the outflow port and closing the dielectric tubular portion at a second end opposite the first end, or that the first and/or second end cap is made of an elastically insulating material.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first end cap and a second end cap in a plasma source. Chen (‘716) discloses a plasma source (see Figures 1-2) comprised of:
an ionization chamber (10) having:
a dielectric tubular portion (3),
an inflow port (1) for feeding a gas or gas mixture into the ionization chamber (10),
an outflow port (9) for exhausting the disinfecting and/or sterilizing gas mixture out of the ionization chamber (10),
a first electrode (5) positioned inside the dielectric tubular portion (3), and
a second electrode (2) positioned outside the dielectric tubular portion (3);
a high voltage source (8) having a high voltage output terminal (i.e. at 8 interfacing with solid lines connecting to 2 and 5), wherein an electrical connector (i.e. solid line leading from 8 to 2 and 5) connects the high voltage output terminal to the first electrode (5) and the second electrode (2); and
a first end cap (7) including the inflow port (1) and closing the dielectric tubular portion (3) at a first end, and a second end cap (7) including the outflow port (9) and closing the dielectric tubular portion (4) at a second end opposite the first end (see Figures 1-2; see English translation, p. 5 [0025] – last 2 lines),
wherein the first and/or second end cap (7) is made of an electrically insulating material (see English translation, p. 5 [0025] – last line),
in order to seal both ends of the ionization chamber so as to contain the contents within the interior/chamber (see Figures 1-2; see English translation, p. 5 [0025] - last 2 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first end cap and a second end cap with the plasma source of Nelson as a known configuration in order to enclose and contain the gas and generated plasma as shown by Chen.
Thus, Claims 8-9 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Nelson (‘715) and Chen (‘716).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (WO2018005715) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR20180027446).
Nelson (‘715) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Nelson (‘715) does not appear to specifically teach that the plasma source includes a housing wherein the ionization chamber, the high voltage source, and at least part of the forced gas cooling system are included in the housing.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a housing with a plasma source. Kim (‘446) discloses a plasma device comprised of a housing which includes a plasma source (100) and all of its necessary components (e.x. electrodes 102 and 103, dielectric 104) (see Figures 3a-3b) in order to enclose and provide a user friendly device that enables sterilization of objects (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-3b, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a housing with the plasma source of Nelson that encloses various/all components as a known configuration in order to provide a user friendly/safe device that enables sterilization of objects as shown by Kim.
Thus, Claim 11 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Nelson (‘715) and Kim (‘446).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (WO2018005715) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kurunczi (8092643).
Nelson (‘715) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
While Nelson (‘715) discloses that the dielectric tubular portion includes a wall of glass, Nelson (‘715) does not appear to specifically teach that the glass is in the form of a borosilicate glass.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a borosilicate glass as the material for a dielectric tubular portion in a plasma source. Kurunczi (‘643) discloses a plasma device (100) comprising a dielectric tubular portion (102) formed with glass such as a borosilicate glass (see entire document, particularly Col. 4 lines 44-59 specifically lines 49 and 58) and a first electrode (104) positioned inside the dielectric tubular portion (102) in order to provide atmospheric pressure plasma. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a borosilicate glass as the material for the dielectric tubular portion of Nelson as a known alternate dielectric material as a matter of engineering choice in order to produce plasma as shown by Kurunczi.
Thus, Claim 18 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Nelson (‘715) and Kurunczi (‘643).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter is due to inclusion of limitation “the forced gas cooling system comprises an elongate funnel having two sidewalls tapering towards the dielectric tubular portion and extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the funnel is arranged between at least one fan and the dielectric tubular portion and configured to force the cooling gas flow by the fan into the funnel towards its narrow end where the two sidewalls converge, wherein the narrow end has an elongate exit opening disposed adjacent the dielectric tubular portion and extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the exit opening is arranged facing the dielectric tubular portion and configured to force the cooling gas flow exiting the opening to flow onto one side of the tubular portion in the direction substantially orthogonal to the longitudinal axis”. Neither of the prior art of Nelson (WO2018005715) or Kim (KR100932102) teaches the specific configuration and components, that “the forced gas cooling system comprises an elongate funnel having two sidewalls tapering towards the dielectric tubular portion and extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the funnel is arranged between at least one fan and the dielectric tubular portion and configured to force the cooling gas flow by the fan into the funnel towards its narrow end where the two sidewalls converge, wherein the narrow end has an elongate exit opening disposed adjacent the dielectric tubular portion and extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the exit opening is arranged facing the dielectric tubular portion and configured to force the cooling gas flow exiting the opening to flow onto one side of the tubular portion in the direction substantially orthogonal to the longitudinal axis”. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plasma source comprised of components in the configuration as set forth in the claims, particularly that “the forced gas cooling system comprises an elongate funnel having two sidewalls tapering towards the dielectric tubular portion and extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the funnel is arranged between at least one fan and the dielectric tubular portion and configured to force the cooling gas flow by the fan into the funnel towards its narrow end where the two sidewalls converge, wherein the narrow end has an elongate exit opening disposed adjacent the dielectric tubular portion and extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the exit opening is arranged facing the dielectric tubular portion and configured to force the cooling gas flow exiting the opening to flow onto one side of the tubular portion in the direction substantially orthogonal to the longitudinal axis”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: WO2009060213 (microwave plasma source with power control components); CN105472856 (a plasma source with end caps).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758