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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 14, element 210. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 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 14-15 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.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100247403 (hereinafter “Hancock”) in view of EP 0880164 A1 (hereinafter “Suzuki”) and FI 20195200 A1 (hereinafter “Mikko”) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 4/26/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Hancock teaches a sterilization apparatus [abstract] comprising:
a microwave source arranged to generate microwave energy ([0107], Fig. 1, 101);
a mist generator arranged to generate a flow of water mist ([0110], Fig. 1, 505);
PNG
media_image1.png
381
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 16)][AltContent: textbox (Figure 2: Annotated Fig. 16)]a manifold connected to receive the flow of water mist from the mist generator and configured to direct the flow of water mist through an internal volume thereof towards a manifold outlet (interior volume of applicator 300 = manifold connected to mist generator and directs water mist towards manifold outlet, see Figure 1 below); and
a power distribution device (Fig. 5, power level controller 20 + tuning elements 30, 500, 50-100) having an input port coupled to the microwave source ([0121-0122], controller 20 has input port connected to source 10) and an output port coupled to the internal volume of the manifold (output port of tuning elements coupled to microwave cable assembly 200 which is coupled to internal volume of manifold via microwave input connector 180 = output port [0132-0133]).
Hancock does not teach a plurality of output ports coupled to the internal volume of the manifold.
Suzuki teaches plasma processing apparatus (abstract) comprising an annular waveguide 3a configured to introduce a microwave into a plasma generation chamber via a plurality of output ports 3b (col 8, lines 10-20). Suzuki further teaches that this configuration led to efficient microwave distribution and high-density plasma generation (col 31, lines 5-10).
Hancock and Suzuki are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to plasma generating apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Hancock to include a plurality of microwave output ports coupled to a waveguide and plasma generating region as exemplified by Suzuki since Suzuki teaches a plurality of microwave output ports to generate a higher density of plasma in an internal volume of a manifold (col 31, lines 5-10) and this involves the duplication of parts which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Modified Hancock teaches wherein the power distribution device distributes microwave energy from microwave source received at the input port to an output port to generate a plasma in a plasma generating region of the internal volume. (Hancock, controller 20 receives energy from source 10 and outputs it at port 180, [0121-0122], [0132-0133], plasma generating region = internal volume area between manifold and manifold outlet, see Figure 1 above), but does not teach wherein the power distribution device is configured as a power splitter that operates to distribute microwave energy received at the input port between the plurality of output.
Mikko teaches a Wilkinson divider, a power distribution device known to split two or more in-phase signals with the same amplitude (page 2, para 3), configured to use a printed circuit board (PCB) to prevent power loss and more cost-effective wave splitting for large array networks (page 5, para 4).
Mikko is considered reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention as one having ordinary skilled in the art would have been concerned with resolving the issue of power distribution amongst the microwave outlet ports. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power distribution device of Modified Hancock to include the Wilkinson divider as taught by Mikko to distribute microwave energy among the plurality of output ports in a cost-effective manner and prevent power loss and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power distribution device comprises a Wilkinson power divider (Mikko, page 2, para 3).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of output ports (see claim 1 rejection) and a plasma applicator coupled to one of the output ports (Hancock, plasma applicator 300 coupled to output port 180), but does not teach a plurality of plasma applicators, wherein each plasma applicator is connected to a respective output port.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of output ports as taught by Modified Hancock to be coupled a plurality of plasma applicators as taught by Hancock to increase the amount of plasma and hydroxyl radicals generated and this involves the duplication of parts which has already been found to be obvious See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 10, further comprising an adapter for connecting the output port to the plasma applicator (Hancock, teaches an embodiment where an adapter 185 connects output port 180 to applicator 300, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of output ports is disposed around the plasma generating region (Hancock, ports 180 disposed around plasma generating region = internal volume between manifold outlet and manifold, see Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plasma generating region has a torus shape (Hancock, a cross section of the plasma generating region, which equals an internal volume between manifold outlet and manifold, is a torus shape, see Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the manifold comprises a first portion defining a first plasma generating region and a second portion defining a second plasma generating region (Hancock, see Figure 2 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2: Annotated Fig. 16)]
PNG
media_image2.png
424
830
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, comprising a gas supply which is connected to deliver a gas flow to the mist generator (Hancock, [0109, 0113, 0136] gas cylinder 410 and compressed air generator 420 connected to mist generator 505 via applicator 300, Fig. 2), wherein preferably the gas flow entrains water mist formed by the mist generator to create the flow of water mist (Hancock, gas flow understood to entrain water mist to create flow of water mist to be ionized into radicals [0113, 0136]).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 10, wherein each plasma applicator comprises: a conductive tube (Hancock, [0156], teaches an embodiment wherein applicator 300 has outer conductive tube 390, Fig. 5);
and an elongate conductive member extending along a longitudinal axis of the conductive tube (Hancock, [0156], inner conductive tube 320, Fig. 5),
wherein the conductive tube and elongate conductive member provide a first coaxial transmission line at a proximal end of the plasma applicator (Hancock [0133], conductor 310 = first coaxial transmission line at proximal end of applicator 300, Fig. 5)
and a second coaxial transmission line at a distal end of the plasma applicator ([0133], conductor 320 = second coaxial transmission line at distal end of applicator 300, Fig. 5), and
wherein the first coaxial transmission line is configured as a quarter wavelength impedance transformer (Hancock, [0133]).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second coaxial transmission line is configured with a higher impedance than the first coaxial transmission line (Hancock, [0137]).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 16, wherein the flow of gas received by each plasma applicator passes between the conductive tube and elongate conductive member (Hancock, teaches an embodiment of the applicator 300 wherein gas 470 passes between conductive tube 390 and elongate conductive member 320, Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 16, wherein each plasma applicator comprises a gas inlet tube configured to deliver the flow of gas to a space between the conductive tube and the elongate conductive member wherein the gas inlet tube extends transversely to the longitudinal axis of the conductive tube (Hancock, [0133] teaches an embodiment of the applicator 300 wherein gas inlet tube--which is in the transversal plane relative to the longitudinal axis of the conductive tube--delivers gas 470 into space between conductive tube 390 and elongate conductive member 320, Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microwave source comprises a magnetron (Hancock, [0105]).
Regarding claim 21, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein a manifold outlet of the manifold is couplable to an enclosure that defines a space to be sterilized (Hancock, delivery channel 301 coupled to applicator 300 and enclosure 600, [0113], Fig. 2).
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100247403 (hereinafter “Hancock”) in view of EP 0880164 A1 (hereinafter “Suzuki”) and FI 20195200 A1 (hereinafter “Mikko”) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 4/26/2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210013010 A1 (hereinafter “Yoshikawa”).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power distribution device comprises a microwave cable assembly coupled to the output port (Hancock, [0121-0122]), wherein the cable assembly may be a coaxial waveguide (Hancock, [0132]) but does not teach a plurality of interconnected waveguides.
Yoshikawa teaches a plasma device [abstract] comprising a microwave power distribution device (Fig. 1, 10) with an assembly of interconnected waveguides (12A-C, [0040]), wherein the waveguides comprise removable stubs 30 to control the distribution of microwave energy (Fig. 4, [0040]) towards a output 12E and ensure uniform plasma generation [0048].
Yoshikawa and Modified Hancock are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to plasma generating devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Modified Hancock with the interconnected waveguides as taught by Yoshikawa since Yoshikawa teaches the waveguides to control the distribution of microwave energy [0040] and ensure uniform plasma generation [0048] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 2, wherein each waveguide comprises a hole in a block made from a conductive material (Yoshikawa, coaxial waveguide comprises a hole [Fig. 2B, gap 13] in a block made from a conductive material 12a’’).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 2, wherein the assembly of interconnected waveguides comprises a plurality of interconnected straight waveguides that provide a plurality of paths from the input port to the outlet ports (Yoshikawa, plurality of interconnected straight waveguides [Fig. 1, 12A-C] have plurality of paths from inlet 10 to outlet 12E), where each path comprises a plurality of orthogonally disposed waveguide sections that interconnect junctions between the waveguides (Fig. 1, 12D = orthogonally disposed waveguide sections that interconnect junctions).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100247403 (hereinafter “Hancock”) in view of EP 0880164 A1 (hereinafter “Suzuki”), FI 20195200 A1 (hereinafter “Mikko”) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 4/26/2023), US 20210013010 A1 (hereinafter “Yoshikawa”), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20100296977 A1 (hereinafter “Hancock ‘977”).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 2 including a waveguide assembly comprising a plurality of waveguides (Yoshikawa, waveguides 12A-C, [0040]) but does not teach wherein each waveguide includes a waveguide body made from a plastic material wherein the waveguide body has a passageway formed therein, an inner surface of which is covered by a conductive layer.
Hancock ‘977 teaches a microwave plasma sterilization system [abstract] comprising a waveguide with a plastic body (Fig. 10b, sheath 313) surrounding a passageway (311) made of a conductive material (319, [0237, 0275]) wherein the plastic body is to ensure flexibility of the assembly [0275].
Hancock ‘977 and Modified Hancock are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to plasma sterilization apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveguide assembly as taught by Modified Hancock to include the plastic sheath and passageway of the waveguide as taught by Hancock ‘977 to improve the durability of the waveguide as Hancock teaches the plastic sheath to ensure flexibility of the assembly [0275] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Claims 5-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100247403 (hereinafter “Hancock”) in view of EP 0880164 A1 (hereinafter “Suzuki”) and FI 20195200 A1 (hereinafter “Mikko”) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 4/26/2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 20140263202 A1 (hereinafter “Partridge”).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, comprising power distribution device (Hancock, [0121-0122], power level controller 20) coupled to microwave outlet ports (Hancock, outlet port 180) via a waveguide (Hancock, waveguides 200 couple to outlet port 180 [0132-0133]), but does not teach wherein the device comprises a ring coupler, wherein the plurality of output ports extend radially inwards from the ring coupler.
Suzuki teaches plasma processing apparatus (abstract) comprising an annular waveguide 3a configured to introduce a microwave into a plasma generation chamber via a plurality of output ports 3b (col 8, lines 10-20). Suzuki further teaches that this configuration led to efficient microwave distribution and high-density plasma generation (col 31, lines 5-10).
Suzuki and Hancock are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to plasma generating apparatuses. Therefore, it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Hancock to include the ring coupler with the plurality of microwave output ports as taught by Suzuki to improve the efficiency of microwave transmission and generate a high density of plasma in the internal volume of the manifold and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Modified Hancock does not teach wherein the plurality of output ports extend radially inwards from the ring coupler.
Partridge teaches a magnetron plasma torch (abstract) with an annular ring coupler (Fig. 1B, 104) that transfers microwave energy to a plasma torch 108 with resonant cavities 132 [0034] which extend radially and wherein the size of the resonant cavities can be altered to determine the frequency of emitted microwaves [0032].
Partridge and Modified Hancock are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to plasma generating devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the annular microwave outputs as taught by Modified Hancock to extend radially inward as taught by Partridge to enable control of the output microwave frequency since Partridge teaches the resonant cavities can be sized to determine the frequency of emitted microwaves [0032] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 5, wherein a distance between adjacent output ports around the ring coupler is n λ/2, wherein n is an integer and λ is the wavelength of the microwave energy (Suzuki, col 9, lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Hancock teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 5, wherein the input port is disposed on the ring coupler at a location that is equidistant between a pair of output ports (Suzuki, input port distributed on a ring coupler equidistant between a pair of output ports 3b, Fig. 5C, input port 10).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, 15-18, and 20-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-7, 10, 13, and 15 of copending Application No. 17/927,268 (hereinafter “‘268”) in view of US 20100247403 (hereinafter “Hancock”) in view of EP 0880164 A1 (hereinafter “Suzuki”) and FI 20195200 A1 (hereinafter “Mikko”) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 4/26/2023).
Regarding claim 1, ‘268 teaches a sterilisation apparatus comprising:
a microwave source arranged to generate microwave energy (claim 1).;
a mist generator arranged to generate a flow of water mist (claim 1).;
a manifold connected to receive the flow of water mist from the mist generator and configured to direct the flow of water mist through an internal volume thereof towards a manifold outlet (claim 1).
However, ‘268 does not teach a power distribution device having an input port coupled to the microwave source and a plurality of output ports coupled to the internal volume of the manifold, wherein the power distribution device is configured as a power splitter that operates to distribute microwave energy received at the input port between the plurality of output ports to generate a plasma in a plasma generating region of the internal volume.
Hancock teaches a power distribution device (Fig. 5, power level controller 20 + tuning elements 30, 500, 50-100) having an input port coupled to the microwave source ([0121-0122], controller 20 has input port connected to source 10) and an output port coupled to the internal volume of the manifold (output port of tuning elements coupled to microwave cable assembly 200 which is coupled to internal volume of manifold via microwave input connector 180 = output port [0132-0133]).
‘268 and Hancock are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to plasma sterilizing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sterilization apparatus as taught by ‘268 with the power distribution device as taught by Hancock to control and tune the microwaves entering the manifold and plasma generating region and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Modified ‘268 does not teach a plurality of output ports coupled to the internal volume of the manifold.
Suzuki teaches plasma processing apparatus (abstract) comprising an annular waveguide 3a configured to introduce a microwave into a plasma generation chamber via a plurality of output ports 3b (col 8, lines 10-20). Suzuki further teaches that this configuration led to efficient microwave distribution and high-density plasma generation (col 31, lines 5-10).
Modified ‘268 and Suzuki are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to plasma generating apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Modified ‘268 to include a plurality of microwave output ports coupled to a waveguide and plasma generating region as exemplified by Suzuki since Suzuki teaches a plurality of microwave output ports to generate a higher density of plasma in an internal volume of a manifold (col 31, lines 5-10) and this involves the duplication of parts which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Modified ‘268 teaches wherein the power distribution device distributes microwave energy from microwave source received at the input port to an output port to generate a plasma in a plasma generating region of the internal volume. (Hancock, controller 20 receives energy from source 10 and outputs it at port 180, [0121-0122], [0132-0133], plasma generating region = internal volume area between manifold and manifold outlet, see Figure 1 above), but does not teach wherein the power distribution device is configured as a power splitter that operates to distribute microwave energy received at the input port between the plurality of output.
Mikko teaches a Wilkinson divider, a power distribution device known to split two or more in-phase signals with the same amplitude (page 2, para 3), configured to use a printed circuit board (PCB) to prevent power loss and more cost-effective wave splitting for large array networks (page 5, para 4).
Mikko is considered reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention as one having ordinary skilled in the art would have been concerned with resolving the issue of power distribution amongst the microwave outlet ports. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power distribution device of Modified ‘268 to include the Wilkinson divider as taught by Mikko to distribute microwave energy among the plurality of output ports in a cost-effective manner and prevent power loss and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Modified ‘268 teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of plasma applicators, but does not explicitly teach wherein which each plasma applicator is connected to a respective output port of a power distribution device (‘268, claim 1).
Hancock teaches where the power distribution device (Fig. 5, power level controller 20 + tuning elements 30, 500, 50-100) having an input port coupled to the microwave source ([0121-0122], controller 20 has input port connected to source 10) and an output port coupled to the internal volume of the manifold (output port of tuning elements coupled to microwave cable assembly 200 which is coupled to internal volume of manifold via microwave input connector 180 = output port [0132-0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect each plasma applicator as taught by ‘268 to each of the plurality of ouput ports as taught by Hancock to direct the microwave energy from each of the outputs to strike a plasma inside each of the plasma applicatos to generate a plasma in the plasma generating region and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 15, Modified ‘268 teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 10, comprising a gas supply which is connected to deliver a gas flow to the mist generator, wherein preferably the gas flow entrains water mist formed by the mist generator to create the flow of water mist (‘268, claim 13).
Regarding claim 16, Modified ‘268 teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 10, wherein each plasma applicator comprises: a conductive tube; and an elongate conductive member extending along a longitudinal axis of the conductive tube, wherein the conductive tube and elongate conductive member provide a first coaxial transmission line at a proximal end of the plasma applicator, and a second coaxial transmission line at a distal end of the plasma applicator, and wherein the first coaxial transmission line is configured as a quarter wavelength impedance transformer (‘268, claim 5).
Regarding claim 17, Modified ‘268 teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second coaxial transmission line is configured with a higher impedance than the first coaxial transmission line (‘268, claim 6).
Regarding claim 18, Modified ‘268 teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 16, wherein the flow of gas received by each plasma applicator passes between the conductive tube and elongate conductive member (‘268, claim 7).
Regarding claim 20, Modified ‘268 teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microwave source comprises a magnetron (‘268, claim 10).
Regarding claim 21, Modified ‘268 teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein a manifold outlet of the manifold is couplable to an enclosure that defines a space to be sterilized (‘268, claim 15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140319382 A1 teaches a plasma sterilization device with a plurality of interconnected waveguides coupled to plasma applicators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEBYATE SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758