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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oinuma et al (PG-PUB US 2018/0134891).
Regarding claim 1, Oinuma et al disclose a method of treating liquid (ABSTRACT). The method comprises steps of
(1) supplying water feed comprising at least organic substance and bacteria to a treatment tank 1, wherein the treatment tank is operated under a working pressure to generate electrical discharge in water (i.e., feeding a liquid feed stream … to an operating plasma reactor under an operating plasma reactor …, Figures 1, 5-6, paragraphs [0054] – [0058], [0109] & [0111] –[0115]); and
(2) generating electric discharge from a pulse power supply 7 in the treatment tank 1 to decompose the organic substance through a reaction in the water feed (i.e., discharging electricity into the liquid reactant stream …, Figures 1, 5-6, [0058], [0070] – [0077], [0096], & [0111] – [0115]).
The instant specification discloses that (i) the energy associated with electric discharge in the reaction stream is sufficient to break down the chemical bond, (ii) liquid plasma is generated through electric discharge in solutions, (iii) pulsed-electric discharge in liquid is capable of inducing various reactions including the degradation of organic compounds, the destruction of bacteria and viruses in a gaseous volume; and (iv) application of a voltage of from about 2 kV to 15 kV or more allows the plasma reactor 20 to continuously, or substantially continuously, and stably, or substantially stably, generate a liquid plasma (paragraphs [0035], [0041], & [0052]).
Oinuma teaches that water is treated by electrical/streamer/barrier discharge from a pulse power supply for supplying a voltage in a range of 1 kV to 50 kV to generate ozone and radicals for bacterial/substances removal (paragraphs [0001], [0003] – [0005], [0058], [0070] - [0071], & [0096]). which is the same as disclosed in the instant specification to continuously and stably generate a liquid plasma.
Moreover, it is known in the art that ozone and radicals are generated in water by plasma/corona/streamer/barrier discharge.
Thus, Oinuma teaches to generate a liquid plasma by discharging electricity or electrical discharge in water from the pulse power supply for supplying a voltage in a range of 1 kV to 50 kV to generate ozone and radicals for bacterial/substances removal from water .
The limitation of “an operating plasma reactor” does not recite any structural element and will be interpreted as “a reactor/enclosure/tank/vessel configured to operate for generating electric discharge and/or plasma”. The treatment tank 1 of Oinuma is for water treatment by generating electric discharge (Figures 1, 5-6, [0058]), reading on “an operating plasma reactor”.
It should be noted that the claim does not define “an operating pressure”, which will be interpreted as “a pressure for operating the device”. Oinuma teaches that the internal pressure of the treatment tank 1 is set at atmospheric pressure or other operating pressures (paragraph [0109]), reading on “under an operating pressure”.
Furthermore, the limitation of “to initiates or accelerates … to form a product composition” is a result of performing the claimed method.
Since the method of Oinuma comprises substantially the same steps as claimed, it must have the same outcome unless some limitations are not currently claimed.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Oinuma teaches that the organic substance in the water feed is decomposed (Figures 1, 5-6, [0054], [0077], & [0111]).
Regarding claim 5, Oinuma teaches water treatment ( Figures 1, 5-6, [0054], & [0111]).
Regarding claim 12, Oinuma teaches that the organic substance in the water feed is decomposed (Figures 1, 5-6, [0054], [0077], & [0111]).
Regarding claim 13, Oinuma teaches that the organic substance and bacteria in the water feed is decomposed and removed (Figures 1, 5-6, [0054], [0070], & [0111]).
Regarding claim 16, Oinuma teaches that water is delivered to the water treatment tank 1 through a water feed port 1a (Figures 1, 5-6, [0054] & [0111]).
Regarding claim 17, Oinuma teaches that a sets of treatment units 19 are provided and each of the units 19 comprises a plate ground electrode 2 and a powered mesh electrode 6 having dielectric layers thereupon, wherein (i) at least two of the ground electrodes 2 are provided on the two sides of at least one powered electrode 6; (ii) one of the ground electrodes is provided at a portion close to the feed port 1a of the treatment tank 1 and another ground electrode is provided to a portion close to a discharge port 1c of the treatment tank 1; and (iii) the water to be treated flows through the treatment tank 1 between the feed port 1a and the discharge port 1c where the dielectric coatings are provided on the mesh powered electrodes 6 (i.e., a high-voltage electrode… a first portion … one or more chambers …, a first ground electrode … a second portion … the inlet …, a second ground electrode … a third portion … , a first dielectric plate … one or more first openings ..., a second dielectric plate … one or more second openings …, Figures 1, 5-6, paragraphs [0054] – [0058], [0099] –[0100], & [0111] –[0115]).
Regarding claim 18, Oinuma teaches that generating electric discharge within the water treatment tank 1 by applying a voltage to the electrodes from a pulse power supply 7 (Figures 1, 5-6, paragraphs [0058], & [0111] –[0115]).
Regarding claim 19, Oinuma teaches to apply a voltage to the electrodes from a pulse power supply 7 which is controlled by a centralized control unit 35 (Figures 1, 5-6, paragraphs [0058], & [0113] – [0114]).
Regarding claim 20, Oinuma teaches to supply water feed from the feed port 1a and flow the water feed through the water treatment tank 1 to the discharge port 1c (Figures 1, 5-6, paragraphs [0054] – [0058], & [0111] –[0115]).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinuma et al (PG-PUB US 2018/0134891) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koo et al (PG-PUB US 2013/0062014).
Regarding claim 10, Oinuma teaches that hydroxyl and hydrogen radicals are generated from electric discharge generated in the water and can effectively remove bacteria and achieve bleaching effects (paragraph [0070]), but does not teach to load a catalyst to the treatment tank. However, Koo et al disclose a method of treating liquid (ABSTRACT). Koo teaches that catalysts 40 are provided to a container 23 having liquid medium 34 and the provision of catalysts 40 increases concentration of radicals for improving treatment (Figures 4 & 13-14, paragraphs [0059], [0068], & [0087]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to add catalysts in the treatment tank as suggested by Koo in order to increase radical concentration for improving treatment while using the method of Oinuma.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinuma et al (PG-PUB US 2018/0134891) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zolezzi-Garreton (PG-PUB US 2015/0139853).
Regarding claim 22, Oinuma teaches that a pulse power supply 7 is used for generating electrical discharge at a voltage in a range of 1 kV to 50 kV and pulse frequency in a range of 10 Hz to 100 kHz (i.e., overlapping with the claimed range, Figure 1, paragraphs [0058] & [0096] - [0097]), but does not teach to using an alternating current source. However, Zolezzi-Garreton discloses a method of treating liquid (ABSTRACT). Zolezzi-Garreton teaches that water is treated by generating plasma from a power source which may be a pulsed DC power source or a pulsed AC power source (paragraphs [0054] - [0059]). The teaching of Zolezzi-Garreton shows that utilizing an alternating current pulsed power source is an equivalent power supply for generating plasma to treat water. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an alternating current pulsed power source to generate plasma for water treatment with a reasonable expectation of success because it is an art-recognized equivalent.
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 2143(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the arguments regarding “claim 1 is very clear in that the "operating pressure" isn't simply any "pressure for operating the device" as asserted by the Office. Rather, it is a pressure that is able "to continuously, or substantially continuously, and stably, or substantially stably, generate a liquid plasma” (page 7 of REMARKS),
(i) it should be noted that claim 1 does not define what “an operating pressure” is or at what operating pressure a liquid plasma could be continuously, or substantially continuously, and stably, or substantially stably generated. As stated in the office action, “an operating pressure” is interpreted as “a pressure for operating the device”. Oinuma teaches that the internal pressure of the treatment tank 1 is set at atmospheric pressure or other operating pressures (paragraph [0109]), reading on “under an operating pressure”.
(ii) Moreover, the instant specification does not define “an operating pressure” or disclose “a pressure that is able to continuously, or substantially continuously, and stably, or substantially stably, generate a liquid plasma”. Rather, the instant specification states that application of high voltage allow to continuously and stably generate a liquid plasma (paragraph [0042]). That is, applying high voltage results in continuously and stably generating a liquid plasma. NO disclosure regarding “an operating pressure”.
(iii) Furthermore, the applicant does not provide any evidence that the teaching of Oinuma could not continuously and stably generate a liquid plasma under an operating pressure.
In response to the arguments regarding “Oinuma et al. does not teach or suggest any operating pressure that would or could continuously, or substantially continuously, and stably, or substantially stably, generate a liquid plasma, as claimed. Rather, it teaches the absence of pressure is used in its system, as Oinuma relies on gravity” (page 7 of REMARKS), it should be noted that claim 1 does not require any operating pressure that is related to gravity or NOT relied on gravity.
Furthermore, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12-13, 16-20, and 22 are rejected. Claims 3, 6-9, 11, 14-15, and 21 are withdrawn.
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 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