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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on
11/07/2025.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are maintained.
Claims 1-6 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakatani et al (US 9233848 B2).
Claim 1: Nakatani discloses a method for optimizing the consumption of an operating resource of ozone generators (see e.g. abstract) in which an oxygen-containing gas is conveyed through an existing gap between two conductors (see e.g. Fig 2), between which there is a potential difference (see e.g. col 4, lines 61-67), wherein the ozone generator has a generator rated power Pn that is achieved when the ozone generator has an electrical power Pel = Pelmax coupled (see e.g. col 5, lines 37-42) and the oxygen-containing gas is conveyed through the gap (see e.g. col 5, lines 8-15) with a gas flow φN (see e.g. abstract), such that the gas that flows through has an ozone concentration cozN (see e.g. abstract), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
A) specify a required generator power Ptarget (“amount of ozone required”, see e.g. abstract and col 10, lines 17-20),
B) if 0 < Ptarget < Pn, reduce both the electrical power Pel = Pel,actual < Pel,max ( “electricity charge”, which is the electricity consumed by the generator, see e.g. col 1, lines 45-55, and based on the power supply, see e.g. col 6, lines 21-24; see e.g. col 7, lines 40-45; col 10, lines 28-32) and the ozone concentration coz,actual < cozN, (see e.g. col 8, lines 4-14; col 10, lines 1-5 and lines 46-48) wherein Pel,actual and coz is selected in order to achieve the required generator power Ptarget.
Claim 2: Nakatani discloses that Pel,actual and coz,actual are selected in such a way that the operating costs of the consumption of the operating resources are reduced (see e.g. connecting paragraph of col 8 and col 9) in comparison by both a reduction in electrical power with consistent gas flow φN,max with an ozone concentration cozN and a reduction in gas flow φN,actual with consistent ozone concentration cozN (see e.g. col 8, lines 37-67 and col 9, lines 1-6).
Claim 3: Nakatani discloses that performance map Poz(Pel, φN) is determined for the ozone generator (see e.g. Fig 9; col 8, lines 4-20; col 13, lines 1-29), and according to step A) based on the characteristic performance map a minimum gas flow φmin and/or a minimum electrical power Pemin is determined (see e.g. Fig 4 and Fig 6) and in step B) φactual ≥ φmin and/or Pel,actual ≥ Pel,min is selected (see e.g. “non-operation region” Fig 4 and Fig; col 8, lines 4-13 and lines 30-36).
Claim 4: Nakatani discloses that based on the characteristic performance map, multiple combinations of reduced electrical power Pel,actual and reduced ozone concentration coz,actual are determined (see e.g. connecting paragraph of col 6 and col 7), and for each of these combinations, the associated operating costs are determined (see e.g. connecting paragraph of col 6 and col 7) and in step B) the combination is selected at which the operating costs are the lowest (see e.g. connecting paragraph of col 8 and col 9).
Claim 5: Nakatani discloses that based on the characteristic performance map, multiple combinations of reduced electrical power Pel,actual and reduced ozone concentration coz,actual are determined (see e.g. connecting paragraph of col 6 and col 7), and for each of these combinations the associated operating costs are determined (see e.g. connecting paragraph of col 6 and col 7), and an interpolation is made between the determined operating costs and based on the interpolation (calculations, see e.g. connecting paragraph of col 6 and col 7; Fig 4 and Fig 6), a combination is determined, at which the operating costs are minimal, wherein the combination determined in this way is selected in step B) (see e.g. connecting paragraph of col 8 and col 9).
Claim 6: Nakatani discloses that in step B), the gas flow is also reduced (φN,actual < φN,max) (see e.g. col 10, lines 25-38; col 13, lines 35-40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page(s) 3-4, the Applicant argues that Nakatani does discloses that the if 0 < Ptarget < Pn, reduce both the electrical power Pel = Pel,actual < Pel,max and the ozone concentration coz,actual < cozN because Fig 4 of Nakatini ‘show typical operating points with higher concentrations and reduced ozone quantities (e.g., 12.5 wt% or 14.5 wt% instead of 10 wt%). This increases the concentration, while the electrical power may be reduced or redistributed - the goal is to minimize costs, not necessarily to reduce the concentration’. This is not considered persuasive. Fig 4 of Nakatini is “one example of operating characteristics of an ozone generation system” showing the relationship between the ozone concentration the running costs (see e.g. col 3, lines 43-46) and would not be fully representative of the disclosure of Nakatini. Running cost “is affected by an oxygen gas charge unit price and an electricity charge unit price. An electricity charge of an ozone generating device depends on a place where the ozone generating device is operated, for example, a country, a region, an area, etc. Further, a transportation cost depends on whether a place where an ozone generating device is operated is close to a factory for supplying liquid oxygen or not” (see e.g. col 8 and col 9). Furthermore, Embodiment 7 shows that the running cost can be reduced by changing the power applied to the gas concentrators feeding the device and does change Pel of the generator (see e.g. “PSA” on Fig 13 and Fig 15). Therefore, the running cost in Fig 4 is not necessarily representative of the electrical power of the generator and the ozone concentration.
Fig 9 shows “a flow chart showing the control of an ozone generation system” (see e.g. col 3, lines 62-64) wherein step ST2 sets an initial value of ozone concentration, step ST6 adjusts the power of the power supply based on a target ozone amount, and ST9 involves increasing or decreasing the ozone concentration (see e.g. Fig 9). Fig 14 shows that the power applied to the ozone generators and the concentration of ozone can be decreased (see e.g. input and output of “Ozone generator” on Fig 14). However, if using the PSA, the operating cost is not decreased because PSA cannot vary gas flows (see e.g. col 14, lines 20-22). The PSA is an optional inclusion (see e.g. col 12, lines 21-26). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the disclosure of Naktani supports the step of if 0 < Ptarget < Pn, reduce both the electrical power Pel = Pel,actual < Pel,max and the ozone concentration coz,actual < cozN. MPEP § 2123 II states ‘Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)’.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795