DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 04/14/2026. Claims 11-23 are pending in the application. Claims 11-14 have been withdrawn and claims 15-23 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. The rejection of claims 17-23 under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderl (DE 102018209735 A1) is maintained in view of Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.6-7 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that Wunderl fails to teach the amended claim 1 limitation of “said plasma source having an outer treatment surface, and said plasma source being configured to generate plasma during an operation of the device for treating a textile object on said outer treatment surface in which odor elements are inactivated.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The plasma source (mapped as Wunderl’s electrode arrangement 58, Fig. 4) has an outer treatment surface because the electrode arrangement is in fluid communication with the skin of the patient; thus, the plasma source is on the skin due to the outer treatment surface being in fluid communication with the skin of the patient (otherwise, the plasma generated by the electrodes would simply not contact the skin to be treated).
Furthermore, the limitation of “for treating a textile object on said outer treatment surface” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Wunderl and the plasma source/electrode arrangement of Wunderl is capable of generating plasma for a textile object. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Wunderl’s plasma generated by the electrode arrangement is in fluid communication with the treatment object (i.e., skin). The generated plasma exits through the spacer designed to accommodate a surface/object, thus treating a surface other than the skin is completely feasible (e.g., a textile).
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 15-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wunderl et al. (DE 102018209735 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 06/01/2023).
Regarding claim 15, Wunderl teaches a hand-guided device (Fig. 1-5), comprising: an electrically insulating housing (spacer 7, plasma source 5, and dashed/highlighted portion of base body 3, see drawing below, Fig. 1-5);
PNG
media_image1.png
674
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plasma source accommodated in said housing (electrode surface 58, Fig. 4) and electrically supplied using power electronics (Fig. 5), which are operated with high voltage (“The control device itself can have a high-voltage source or be designed as a high-voltage source”, see p.7, 4th paragraph of English translation, where “the plasma voltage is 3.5 kV (peak to peak), p.14, 2nd to last paragraph of English translation); and
an outer surface of the device (exterior surface of housing as mapped above, Fig. 1-5) which, during use of the device, is in contact with a hand of a user (portion of base body 3 highlighted in the drawing above is in held by a hand) and is at least in part electrically conductive (because all materials in the universe have an electrical conductivity value, the material used for the housing of spacer 7, plasma source 5, and portion of base body 3 are thus “electrically conductive”);
said plasma source having an outer treatment surface (treatment object/skin-facing surface of electrode arrangement 58, Fig. 4), and said plasma source being configured to generate plasma during an operation of the device (p.8, 2nd to last paragraph of English translation) on said outer treatment surface (plasma generated by the electrode arrangement 58 is in fluid communication with the treatment surface (i.e., skin), where the generated plasma exits through the spacer 7 designed to accommodate a surface/object, Fig. 4) in which odor elements are inactivated (p.2, 1st paragraph of English translation).
The limitation of “for treating a textile object on said outer treatment surface” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Wunderl and the plasma source/electrode arrangement of Wunderl is capable of generating plasma for a textile object. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Wunderl’s plasma generated by the electrode arrangement is in fluid communication with the treatment object (i.e., skin). The generated plasma exits through the spacer designed to accommodate a surface/object, thus treating a surface other than the skin is completely feasible (e.g., a textile).
Regarding claim 16, Wunderl teaches wherein said plasma source (electrode 58 is part of plasma source 5, Fig. 5) comprises a circuit board (Fig. 5 is a circuit diagram).
Regarding claim 17, Wunderl teaches a potential equalizing facility spaced apart from the treatment surface (portion of base body 3 labeled with x and Fig. 4’s housing 57, both spaced apart via housing of spacer 7, Fig. 1 and see drawing below).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Wunderl teaches wherein said potential equalizing facility (housing 57, Fig. 4) has an annular body (housing 57 is ring-shaped) that surrounds said power electronics (electrode 58, electrical contacting 67, and safety circuit 65 are surrounded by housing 57, Fig. 3 and p.20, 2nd to last paragraph of English translation) and in part forms the outer surface (housing 57 bounds the exterior surface of plasma source 5. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Wunderl teaches wherein said housing (spacer 7, plasma source 5, and dashed/highlighted portion of base body 3, see drawing above, Fig. 1-5) has an upper part (portion of base body 3, see drawing above) and a lower part (spacer 7, Fig. 1) that delimit an interior space of said housing (Fig. 3) in which said power electronics are accommodated (plasma source containing power electronics, e.g., electrode 58, Fig. 3-4), and wherein said annular body (housing 57, Fig. 3) is arranged between said upper part (portion of base body 3, Fig. 3) and said lower part (spacer 7, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Wunderl teaches wherein said potential equalizing facility has a layer that is applied to said housing (portion of base body 3 labeled with x, see drawing below, is a separate component to the remainder of base body 3, see Fig. 3, and thus is “applied” onto the dashed portion of base body 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
674
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and at least in part forms the outer surface (faces external-facing direction).
Regarding claim 23, Wunderl teaches an actuating element (control element 45, Fig. 3) for selectively activating or deactivating the device (p.9, 4th paragraph of English translation), and wherein said potential equalizing facility (x-portion of base body 3, see drawing above) at least in part forms a surface of said actuating element (groove formed on x-portion surrounding and below control element 45, Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderl et al. (DE 102018209735 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 06/01/2023) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Fregoso (US 20170238987 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Wunderl teaches said layer (x-portion of base body 3, see drawing above), but is silent to the material composition of said layer or the entire base body.
Fregoso teaches a hand-held plasma treatment apparatus for human tissue (treatment device 100, Fig. 1 and [0018]), where the housing encompassing the entire device (101, Fig. 1) can be made of “any appropriate material, such as aluminum, other metal, plastic, etc.” ([0018]).
Wunderl and Fregoso are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hand-held plasma generating apparatuses for the treatment of body surfaces.
Therefore, 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 entire base body (including the x-portion highlighted in drawing above) of Wunderl by incorporating the material to be plastic as taught by Fregoso, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., encompassing all interior components so that the user can hold the device, [0018]) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
With this modification, the plastic being “electrically conductive” is inherent, as all materials have an electrical conductivity value.
Regarding claim 22, Wunderl teaches said layer (x-portion of base body 3, see drawing above), but is silent to the material composition of said layer or the entire base body.
Fregoso teaches a hand-held plasma treatment apparatus for human tissue (treatment device 100, Fig. 1 and [0018]), where the housing encompassing the entire device (101, Fig. 1) can be made of “any appropriate material, such as aluminum, other metal, plastic, etc.” ([0018]).
Wunderl and Fregoso are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hand-held plasma generating apparatuses for the treatment of body surfaces.
Therefore, 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 entire base body (including the x-portion highlighted in drawing above) of Wunderl by incorporating the material to be metal as taught by Fregoso, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., encompassing all interior components so that the user can hold the device, [0018]) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
With this modification, the metal being “electrically conductive” is inherent, as all materials have an electrical conductivity value.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights