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 § 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.
Claim 1-14, and 16 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.
Claim 1 recite “the first flow path flows around the exterior of the first tube”. It is how flow path could flow around. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-14 are rejected.
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 1-2, 9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grant (PG-PUB US 2014/0079617).
Regarding claims 1, and 15-16, Grant disclose a plasma generating apparatus (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises a non-thermal plasma reactor 30 comprising
(1) an inlet 44/outlet 46 flow path and a flow path along an annular gap 42 within the plasma reactor (i.e., a first flow path …, a second/oxidizing flow path of a second stream to flow through the first tube, Figures 2-3, paragraphs [0030] – [0031]);
(2) a first central electrode 32 in the plasma reactor 30 (i.e., an inner electrode …, Figures 2-3, paragraphs [0030] – [0031]);
(3) a second outer electrode 34 concentrically surrounding the first electrode 32, wherein the second outer electrode 34 includes the outlet 46 (i.e., an outer electrode having the outlet, Figures 2-3, paragraphs [0030] – [0031]); and
(4) a power supply for generating non-thermal plasma/dielectric barrier discharge between the first electrode 32 and the second electrode 34 (i.e., a power supply …, Figures 2-3, paragraphs [0013], [0030] – [0031]),
wherein the longitudinal axis of the plasma reactor 30 is perpendicular to the inlet 44/outlet 46 flow path (i.e., the first tube has an axis extending the length of the first tube, and the axis of the first tube is perpendicular to the first flow path, Figures 2-3).
Grant also teaches that a plurality of plasma reactors may be provided (paragraph [0015]). Moreover, the limitation of “the first stream flows around…” is a result of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 2, Grant teaches that a plurality of plasma reactors may be provided (paragraph [0015]). It should be noted that the limitation of “the first stream flows around…” is a result of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 9, Grant teaches that the second electrode 34 is in the form of cylinder (Figures 2-3, paragraph [0030]).
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.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (PG-PUB US 2014/0079617) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang et al (U.S. 5,827,497, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Grant teaches that a plurality of plasma reactor may be provided in series for increase the efficiency (paragraph [0015]), but does not teach the plasma reactors being arranged in rows. However, Wang et al disclose a plasma generating apparatus (ABSTRACT). Wang teaches that a plurality of plasma reactor elements 8 having an inner electrode 10 and an outer electrode 12 is arranged in parallel to increase treatment capacity (Figure 1, col. 3, line 35-41). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the plasma reactors in parallel rows as suggested by Wang in order to increase treatment capacity within the device of Grant.
Regarding claims 4-8, Wang teaches that the reactor elements 8 may have various cross-sectional shape and be arranged in various patterns, including offset with different configurations, to achieve desired results (Figure 3, col. 4, line 25-32). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized to arrange the reactor elements with different geometrical patterns having different spaces therebetween in order to achieve desired results within the device of Grant/Wang.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (PG-PUB US 2014/0079617) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Koo et al (PG-PUB US 2011/0101862).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Grant does not teach the electrode having at least three features thereupon. However, Koo et al disclose a plasma generating apparatus (ABSTACT). Koo teaches that the plasma generating apparatus comprises an inner electrode 42 and an outer electrode 43, wherein the electrodes include a plurality of grooves in a spiral configuration (e.g., at least three features of cross-sectional area, Figure 7, paragraphs [0097] – [0098]). The teaching of Koo shows that having a plurality of features/grooves in a spiral configuration on the electrodes is an equivalent electrode arrangement of a plasma generating apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of features in a spiral configuration on the electrodes because it is an art-recognized equivalent.
Regarding claim 12, Koo teaches that the plasma generating apparatus comprises an inner electrode 42 and an outer electrode 43, wherein the electrodes include a plurality of grooves in a spiral configuration (e.g., at least three features of cross-sectional area, Figure 7, paragraphs [0097] – [0098]).
Regarding claim 13, Grant teaches that a plurality of plasma reactor having electrodes may be provided in series (paragraph [0015]). It should be noted that the limitation of “wherein the voltage is applied to…” is a result of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches that plasma may be generated by pulsed electric energy (paragraph [0063]). It should be noted that the limitation of “to alter a flow speed…” is a result of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,543,457. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims an apparatus comprising substantially the same structures as that of issued patent.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, and 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,000,802. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims an apparatus comprising substantially the same structures as that of issued patent.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,712,657. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims an apparatus comprising substantially the same structures as that of issued patent.
Conclusion
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
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