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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II with Species A1, encompassing claims 10-19, in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged.
NOTE: during a telephone conversion on 7/8/2026 with Rebecca Rudolph, an election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A1 (see attached interview summary for details).
The traversal is on the ground that search and examination can be made without serous burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of Group I and Group II are drawn into different classes and each invention requires a different field of search. Applicants’ attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements, which introduces additional search and examination burden. Applicants’ arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive in so far as the searches are not co-extensive and additional search would of necessity be required for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 10-19 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.
The term “a high voltage” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-19 are rejected.
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 10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0354105) in view of MCNANEY et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0360847).
Regarding claim 10, Lewis et al disclose a system for producing nitrogen compounds (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a system control 109 coupled to a power source, such as a solar energy source, for providing electricity (i.e., a renewable energy source …, a controller …, Figure 1, paragraph [0083]); and
(2) a plasma reactor assembly 105 coupled to the controller system control 109 and having at least one ground electrode 129 and at least one ignition electrode 128 for receiving water and generating PAW having nitrogen compounds (i.e., a plasma reactor …, a powered electrode …, a ground electrode …, Figures 1-2, paragraphs [0082] – [0083], [0086] – [0087], & [0099]).
Lewis teaches that the apparatus allows for on-site conversion of irrigation water containing nitrogen compounds for healthy plant growth (paragraph [0016]), but does not teach a drip irrigation line coupled to an outlet of the plasma reactor to plants. However, MCNANEY et al disclose a system for producing nitrogen compound (ABSTRACT). MCNANEY teaches that the system comprises (i) a controller 280 coupled to the solar energy source 110 for supplying electricity and (ii) a plasma reactor 212 having electrodes for generating nitrogen compounds, wherein the outlet of the plasma reactor is in fluid communication and/or integrated with a drip irrigation system/line 120 to supply the fertilizer for enhancing crop yields (Figures 1-3, paragraphs [0008] –[0009], [0031] - [0033], [0036] – [0037]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to integrate the device of Lewis with a drip irrigation system/line as suggested by MCNANEY in order to supply the generated nitrogen compounds as a fertilizer to enhance crop yields.
Regarding claim 13, Lewis teaches a collection vessel 113 for storing the generated products 107 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0082] & [0084]). MCNANEY teaches a pump 250 is provided downstream of a neutralization chamber 230 and a storage chamber 240 for moving the generated nitrogen compounds to the irrigation system 120 (Figures 1-4, paragraph [0054]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a pump as suggested by MCNANEY in order to move the generated products to the irrigation system within the device of Lewis/MCNANEY.
Regrading claim 14, MCNANEY teaches a drip irrigation system/line 120 and that gravity may be utilized to supplying generated products (paragraphs [0031] & [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, MCNANEY teaches that a valve may be provided at the stream outlet port 260 between the neutralization chamber 230/the storage camber 240 and the irrigation system 120 (Figures 2-3, paragraphs [0055] & [0059]).
Regarding claim 16, Lewis teaches that the system control 109 is coupled to various component of the system for properly control the operation of the system (Figure 1, paragraphs [0083] – [0084]). MCNANEY teaches that the controller is coupled to valves and sensor including a liquid level sensor to properly control the operation of the system (Figures 1-4, paragraphs [[0016], [0063] –[0065], & [0070]) .
Regarding claim 17, Lewis teaches that the apparatus allows for on-site conversion of irrigation water containing nitrogen compounds for healthy plant growth (paragraph [0016]). MCNANEY teaches that the system may be mobile or easily moved to various places for indoor and/or outdoor using (paragraphs [0008], [0021], & [0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Lewis teaches one or more ignition electrodes 128 (paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 19, Lewis teaches a solar power (paragraph [0083]). MCNANEY teaches a solar panel 110 (Figure 1, paragraph [0031]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0354105) and MCNANEY et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0360847) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Levin (PG-PUB US 2019/0013768).
Regarding claim 11, Lewis teaches that the system control 109 is coupled to a solar source and comprises various components (paragraph [0083]) while MCNANEY teaches that the controller 208 is coupled to a solar panel 110 and comprises a programmable logic controller and data acquisition for receiving information and data to properly operate the system (paragraph [0033]), but Lewis/MCNANEY does not teach a charge controller. However, Levin discloses a solar power system (ABSTRACT). Levin teaches that the solar power system comprises a solar charge controller 500 connected to a solar panel 102 for receiving electricity therefrom and regulating volage generated thereby (Figures 3 & 5, paragraphs [0030] & [0032). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include a solar charge controller as suggested by Levin in order to receive electricity and regulate the generated voltage within the device of Lewis/MCNANEY.
Regarding claim 12, Levin teaches that the solar power system includes a battery 502 and an inverter 504 for properly converting DC voltage from the battery to appropriate AC voltage (Figures 3 & 5, paragraphs [0030] & [0032). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include a battery and an inverter as suggested by Levin in order to properly convert the DC voltage to appropriate AC voltage within the device of Lewis/MCNANEY.
Conclusion
Claims 10-19 are rejected. Claims 1-9 and 20 are withdrawn.
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
Prosecution Insights