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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-6 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 1 recites “electricity (pulse)” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “ the electricity (pulse)”. Claim 2 recites “an electric field” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “ the electric field”. Claim 3 recites “ a lengthwise direction ” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “ the lengthwise direction”. Claim 4 recites “ a lengthwise direction ” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “ the lengthwise direction”. Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-6 are rejected. 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 1-3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Maeng (KR 10-2019-0066847, see attached machine translation) . Regarding claim 1 , Maeng discloses a fuel ionization device (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises (1) a positive electrode member 11 and a negative electrode member 12 fixed at a fuel supply pipe 20 , wherein the electrodes are separated apart from each other along the lengthwise of the fuel supply pipe 20 (i.e. a first electrode unit and a second electrode unit … a fuel supply pipe …, wherein … separated … in a lengthwise direction …, Figure 2, abstract & page 5 DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS) ; and (2) a pulse generator 15 for supplying pulse to the positive electrode member 11 and the negative electrode member 12 (i.e., a pulse generating unit …, Figures 2 & 3, abstract & page 5 DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS). The recitation of “where, as electricity(pulse) is periodically applied …, a polarity … is periodically changed, … directions of electric force … are periodically reversed ” is related to a manner of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Moreover, Maeng discloses a circuit diagram of the pulse generator as shown in Figure 3, which has the same components and configurations as disclosed in the instant application (see Figure 3). Thus, the pulse generator 15 of Maeng is fully capable of performing the claimed functions (e.g., as the electricity is periodically applied…, a polarity … is periodically changed, … direction s of electric force … are periodically reversed). Regarding claim 2 , Maeng teaches that the positive electrode member 11 at a first position and the negative electrode member 12 at a second position are arranged along the fuel supply pipe 20 (Figure 2, abstract & page 5 DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS). The limitation of “an electric field… is formed…” is a result of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Regarding claim 3 , Maeng teaches that the positive electrode member 11 at a first position and the negative electrode member 12 at a second position are arranged along the fuel supply pipe 20 (Figure 2, abstract & page 5 DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS). The recitation of “the pulse generating unit alternatively applied … the pulse generating unit applies, … ” is related to a manner of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Moreover, Maeng discloses a circuit diagram of the pulse generator as shown in Figure 3, which has the same components and configurations as disclosed in the instant application (see Figure 3). Thus, the pulse generator 15 of Maeng is fully capable of performing the claimed functions (e.g., as the electricity is periodically applied…, a polarity … is periodically changed, … directions of electric force … are periodically reversed). Regarding claim 6 , Maeng teaches that an insulating covering member 21 is provided on the fuel supply pipe 20 between the electrode members 11 and 12 (Figure 2, page 5 DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS). 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 . Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng (KR 10-2019-0066847, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above . Regarding claim 4 , Maeng does not specifically teach a third electrode. However, i t has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine of skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis , 193 USPQ8 . Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a third electrode because such modification involves routine skill in the art. Moreover, Maeng discloses a circuit diagram of the pulse generator as shown in Figure 3, which has the same components and configurations as disclosed in the instant application (see Figure 3). Thus, the pulse generator 15 of Maeng is fully capable of performing the claimed functions. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143A ). Regarding claim 5 , Maeng teaches that the electrode members are spaced apart for generating electric field for effectively treating the fuel (pages 5-6). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized to arrange the third electrode either upstream or downstream from the first and second electrodes in order to provide space for generating electric field for further treating the fuel within the device of Maeng. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143A). Conclusion Claims 1-6 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1855 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Luan Van can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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