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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of manufacturing a plasma probe, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2023, 09/17/2025, 02/11/2026, 03/02/2026 and 04/15/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The term “Monolithic manner” in claim 3 is a broad, relative term. The plain definition of “Monolithic manner” is ‘formed or composed of material without joints or seams’ as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Applicant does not define “monolithic manner” but instead gives an example. For examination purposes this term is being seen as being of the same material.
The term “constant cross section” in claim 4 is broad because it does not state which axis this cross section is seen from. Therefore, it can be any axis for the cross section. For examination purposes, it is being seen as along the longitudinal axis.
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 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trenconsky et al (US4901719) herein referred to as “Trenconsky”.
PNG
media_image1.png
506
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Trenconsky teaches: A plasma probe (12), (FIG 1) comprising: a hose body (18) (FIG 1 where 48 and 42 are seen as the hose body) that comprises a jacket section (22) (See annotated FIG 3 below) configured in a manner limiting at least one lumen (19, 20, 21) (FIG 8) and a center section (26), which is connected with the jacket section (22) by at least one wall section (23); (FIG 8) and an end piece (17) that is arranged at a distal end (15) of the hose body (18) (See FIG 1 with end piece 52 at the distal end) and comprises a passage channel (29) (FIG 5) as well as a tube shank (30) that extends into the hose body (18); (FIG 5) wherein between the jacket section (22) and the at least one wall section (23, 24, 25) respectively one slit (34, 35, 36) is formed that extends in a proximal direction from the distal end (15) of the hose body (18); (FIG 5 where 84 is seen as slits) wherein the tube shank (30) extends into the slit (34, 35, 36) (FIG 5 where the tube shank 116 extends into slits 84).
Regarding claim 3, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 1, wherein the jacket section (22), the at least one wall section (23) and the center section (26) are connected with one another in a seamless monolithic manner (The plain meaning of monolithic manner is ‘formed or composed of material without joints or seams’ as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. This term “monolithic manner” is seen as broad. FIG 10 where all of the hash marks representing the wall section, center section, and jacket section, being the same is seen as the same material and is thus seamless in a monolithic manner).
Regarding claim 4, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 1, wherein the hose body (18) has a constant cross-section along its entire length (FIG 1 and FIG 4 where the hose body is seen as having a constant longitudinal since each half mirrors each other).
Regarding claim 5, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 1, wherein the end piece (17) is made of a heat-resistant plastic, a metal, or a ceramic ([col 7: line 15] the end piece which is referred to as the pencil can be ceramic).
Regarding claim 6, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 1, wherein the slit (34, 35, 36) comprises a length that is longer than the length of the tube shank (30) (FIG 5; the cavity for which 116 fits is seen as longer than the length for 116).
Regarding claim 7, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 1, wherein the passage channel (29) of the tube shank (30) comprises a wall against which the at least one wall section (23) abuts with an end thereof facing the jacket section (22) (See FIG 5, see piece 100 where the wall of the passage channel of the tube shank abuts with the end facing the jacket section).
Regarding claim 8, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 7, wherein the jacket section (22) is cylindrically configured at least in an area of the tube shank (30) (See FIG 3 above where the jacket section is cylindrical see also FIG 5 where it is cylindrical in the area of the tube shank).
Regarding claim 9, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 1, wherein the at least one wall section (23) is deformed inside of the tube shank (30) (FIG 5 where the wall, 84, is deformed inside of the tube shank 116).
Regarding claim 10, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 1, wherein the tube shank (30) is provided with an anchoring structure (31) on a radial outer surface of the tube shank (30) (FIG 7 where the pieces 110 are seen as the anchors).
Regarding claim 11, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 1, wherein an electrical conductor (27) is arranged in the center section (26) (FIG 8 where piece 56 is the electrical conductor).
Regarding claim 12, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 11, wherein an electrode body (38) is held in the center section (26) (FIG 6 where the electrode, 58, is in the center section).
Regarding claim 13, Trenconsky teaches: The plasma probe according to claim 12, wherein the electrode body (38) is configured in a tube shape and extends between the electrical conductor (27) and the center section (26) (FIG 5, where the electrode 58 is tube shaped).
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.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trenconsky et al (US4901719) herein referred to as “Trenconsky” in view of MacKay (US20080039834A1) herein referred to as MacKay.
Regarding claim 2, Trenconsky discloses: The plasma probe according to claim 1, wherein the hose body (18) is flexible ([col 6: line 17]), however, Trenconsky does not explicitly disclose: the hose body is plastic
MacKay discloses: the hose body is plastic ([0071] the probe attachment which is seen as the hose body is made of plastics)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the hose body as disclosed in Trenconsky to make it out of plastic as disclosed in MacKay. The motivation being that plastic is sufficiently robust and heat resistant with insulating properties which can make the treatment more effective by impeding gas flow (MacKay [0071]).
Regarding claim 14, Trenconsky discloses: The plasma probe according to claim 12, however, Trenconsky does not disclose: wherein the electrode body (38) comprises a heat-resistant electrically conductive material and an electrically conductive coating (39) on a surface of the electrode body, wherein the electrically conductive coating (39) has a melting temperature which is lower than a melting temperature of the heat-resistant electrically conductive material of the electrode body (38)
MacKay discloses: wherein the electrode body (38) comprises a heat-resistant electrically conductive material ([0022] electrode made of Tungsten) and an electrically conductive coating (39) on a surface of the electrode body, ([0022] conductive coating is silver) wherein the electrically conductive coating (39) has a melting temperature which is lower than a melting temperature of the heat-resistant electrically conductive material of the electrode body (38) (It is known that the melting temperature of silver is approximately 961 degrees Celsius and that of Tungsten is approximately 3422 degrees Celsius. Hence the electrically conductive coating, silver, has a lower melting temperature than the electrically conductive material of the electrode body Tungsten)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode and electrode coating of Trenconsky to incorporate them being made of different materials with different melting temperatures. The motivation for this being that this provides an effective material for the discharge of energy, and having the different material coating, in this case silver, creates a highly conductive interface (MacKay [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA M GANAN-SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Joanne M Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.
/C.G.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights