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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: fluid collection system which has been interpreted as an exhaust system, filter and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 115 and 171; bias means in claim 2 which has been interpreted as a bias plate and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 273; exhaust system in claim 6 which has been interpreted as a conduit and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 319; lacing system in claim 7 which has been interpreted as a clamp or fixing means and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 242; claim 16 cryogenic apparatus wherein no specific structure was located in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
As discussed above, claim 16 limitation “cryogenic apparatus” invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference of “cryogenic apparatus” in the disclosure details a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Nevertheless, the claim has been examined as written.
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 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 16 limitation “cryogenic apparatus” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See above for claim interpretation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 10 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0175987 to Creyghton et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,895,558 to Spence.
Regarding claims 1 and 16: Creyghton et al. disclose a system for treating an article substantially as claimed and comprising: a segment (e.g., Fig. 13, 1a) configured to contain (i.e. capable of containing) a local atmosphere and an internal pressure which is within the range of 90 kPa to 110 kPa (0.9-1.1 bar)(see, e.g., para. 48, which discloses 0.1-1 bar); the segment comprising a module (plurality of structures); the module comprising a pair of electrodes (5 [including 6] and 7, also see e.g., Fig. 1 for more detailed illustration); a manifold (15) configured to deliver (i.e. capable of delivering) a fluid to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the pair of electrodes are configured to energize (i.e. capable of energizing) the fluid delivered from the manifold before interacting with the article.
However, Creyghton et al. to disclose a fluid collection system wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold
Spence discloses providing a similar system for treating an article using a fluid delivered via a manifold, the system comprising, inter alia, a fluid collection system (see, e.g., Fig. 1, an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4), oil-free compressor (13), filter (14) and chiller (15)) wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold for the purpose of recycling the fluid, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid for article treatment (see, e.g., column 4, rows 44-58). Although, not expressly disclosed in Spence, one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a fluid collection system in Creyghton et al. in order recycle the fluid, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid, for subsequent article treatment as taught by Spencer, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
With respect to claim 3, Creyghton et al. disclose the module is connected to a common rail (e.g., 9) which is in fluid communication with a fluid reservoir (not illustrated, connected to 15 for providing gas).
With respect to claim 6, in modified Creyghton et al., Spence disclose the fluid collection system comprising an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4) disposed relatively below the module such that at least a portion of the fluid that is not deposited onto the article can be collected.
With respect to claim 7, Creyghton et al. disclose the system comprises a lacing system (e.g., 24 a, b and 25 a, b [considered equivalent to clamp/fixing means]) for guiding the article adjacent to the module.
With respect to claim 10, Creyghton et al. disclose the system further comprise at least one of an atomiser, vaporizer and an aerosolizer (29, see, e.g., para. 88).
With respect to claims 14, which is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 15, in Creyghton et al., the plasma is formed (i.e. is capable of being formed) between the pair of electrodes when the fluid is energized.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR Pub. No. 101098083 in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,895,558 to Spence.
Regarding claims 1 and 16: ‘083 discloses a system for treating an article substantially as claimed and comprising: a segment (e.g., Fig. 10, M2) configured to contain (i.e. capable of containing) a local atmosphere and an internal pressure which is within the range of 90 kPa to 110 kPa (0.9-1.1 bar); a segment comprising a module (Fig. 5, M1x2); the module (also see, e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 4-11) comprising a pair of electrodes (31 and 32); a manifold (2) configured to deliver (i.e. capable of delivering) a fluid to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the pair of electrodes configured to energize (i.e. capable of energizing) the fluid delivered from the manifold before being deposited onto the article.
However, ‘083 fails to disclose a fluid collection system wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold
Spence discloses providing a similar system for treating an article using a fluid delivered via a manifold, the system comprising, inter alia, a fluid collection system (see, e.g., Fig. 1, an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4), oil-free compressor (13), filter (14) and chiller (15)) wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold for the purpose of recycling the fluid, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid for article treatment (see, e.g., column 4, rows 44-58). Although, not expressly disclosed in Spence, one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a fluid collection system in ‘083 in order recycle the fluid for subsequent article treatment, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid for article treatment, as taught by Spencer, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
With respect to claim 2, ‘083 discloses the segment further comprises a bias means (bias plate, 51) configured to attract (i.e. capable of attracting) the fluid energized by the pair of electrodes.
With respect to claim 3, ‘083 discloses the module is connected to a common rail (59) which is in fluid communication with a fluid reservoir (2).
With respect to claim 5, ‘083 discloses the common rail is configured to mate with (i.e. capable of mating with) and releasably fix the module in a desired position (e.g., using bolts 56).
With respect to claim 6, in modified ‘083, Spence disclose the fluid collection system comprising an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4) disposed relatively below the module such that at least a portion of the fluid that is not deposited onto the article can be collected.
With respect to claim 8, ‘083 discloses the manifold comprises a plurality of manifold tubes (see, esp., Figs. 5-6, 13) which comprise a plurality of apertures (11e) for delivery of the fluid.
With respect to claim 9, ‘083 discloses a conduit (Fig. 6, 2a) extends into at least one inlet manifold tube of the plurality of inlet manifold tubes.
With respect to claim 10, ‘083 discloses the system further comprises at least one of an atomiser, a vaporizer and an aerosoliser (not illustrated, see translation which states that liquids may be provided and vaporized).
With respect to claim 11, ‘083 discloses the pair of electrodes are coated with a dielectric material (33).
With respect to claims 14, which is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 15, in ‘083, plasma is formed (i.e. is capable of being formed) between the pair of electrodes when the fluid is energized.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0045168 to Hanson et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,895,558 to Spence.
Regarding claims 1 and 16: Hanson et al. disclose a system for treating an article substantially as claimed and comprising: a segment (e.g., Fig. 1, 10) configured to contain (i.e. capable of containing) a local atmosphere and an internal pressure which is within the range of 90 kPa to 110 kPa (0.9-1.1 bar); the segment comprising a module (plurality of structures); the module comprising a pair of electrodes (e.g., 32 and 34); a manifold (e.g., 62 and 62’) configured to deliver (i.e. capable of delivering) to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the pair of electrodes are adapted configured to energize (i.e. capable of energizing) the fluid delivered from the manifold before being deposited onto the article.
However, Hanson et al. fail to disclose a fluid collection system wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold
Spence discloses providing a similar system for treating an article using a fluid delivered via a manifold, the system comprising, inter alia, a fluid collection system (see, e.g., Fig. 1, an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4), oil-free compressor (13), filter (14) and chiller (15)) wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold for the purpose of recycling the fluid, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid for article treatment (see, e.g., column 4, rows 44-58). Although, not expressly disclosed in Spence, one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a fluid collection system in Hanson et al. in order recycle the fluid for subsequent article treatment, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid for article treatment, as taught by Spencer, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
With respect to claim 3, Hanson et al. disclose the module is connected to a common rail (40) which is in fluid communication with a fluid reservoir (one or more supply tanks, see, e.g., para. 34).
With respect to claim 5, Hanson et al. disclose the common rail is configured to mate with (i.e. capable of mating with) and releasably fix the module in a desired position (see, e.g., para. 30).
With respect to claim 6, in modified Hanson et al., Spence disclose the fluid collection system comprising an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4) disposed relatively below the module such that at least a portion of the fluid that is not deposited onto the article can be collected.
With respect to claim 7, Hanson et al. further disclose the system comprises a lacing system (24 and 26 [considered equivalent to clamp/fixing means]) configured to guide (i.e. capable of guiding) the article adjacent to the module.
With respect to claims 14, which is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 15, in ‘003, plasma is formed (i.e. is capable of being formed) between the pair of electrodes when the fluid is energized.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0156857 to Weng et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,895,558 to Spence.
Regarding claims 1 and 16: Weng et al. disclose a system for treating an article substantially as claimed and comprising: a segment (e.g., Figs. 2-4 and 6, area in and around 200) configured to contain (i.e. capable of containing) a local atmosphere and an internal pressure which is within the range of 90 kPa to 110 kPa (i.e. normal pressure) (0.9-1.1 bar); the segment comprising a module (plurality of structures); the module comprising a pair of electrodes (e.g., 120 and 230); a manifold (250) configured to deliver (i.e. capable of delivering) a fluid to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the pair of electrodes are adapted configured to energize (i.e. capable of energizing) the fluid delivered from the manifold before being deposited onto the article.
However, Weng et al. fail to disclose a fluid collection system wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold
Spence discloses providing a similar system for treating an article using a fluid delivered via a manifold, the system comprising, inter alia, a fluid collection system (see, e.g., Fig. 1, an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4), oil-free compressor (13), filter (14) and chiller (15)) wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold for the purpose of recycling the fluid, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid for article treatment (see, e.g., column 4, rows 44-58). Although, not expressly disclosed in Spence, one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a fluid collection system in Weng et al. in order recycle the fluid for subsequent article treatment, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid for article treatment, as taught by Spencer, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
With respect to claim 3, Weng et al. disclose the module is connected to a common rail (600) which is in fluid communication with a fluid reservoir (not illustrated, in communication with 668).
With respect to claim 4, Weng et al. disclose the common rail further comprises an electrical connection (670) configured to power (i.e. capable of powering) the module.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Weng et al., Spence disclose the fluid collection system comprising an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4) disposed relatively below the module such that at least a portion of the fluid that is not deposited onto the article can be collected.
With respect to claims 14, which is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 15, in Weng et al., plasma is formed (i.e. is capable of being formed) between the electrodes when the fluid is energized.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,610,765 to Roche et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,895,558 to Spence.
Regarding claims 1 and 16: Roche et al. disclose a system for treating an article substantially as claimed and comprising: a segment (e.g., Figs. 1-3B, 10) configured to contain (i.e. capable of containing)a local atmosphere and an internal pressure which is within the range of 90 kPa to 110 kPa (i.e. normal/atmospheric pressure) (0.9-1.1 bar); the segment comprising a module (plurality of structures); the module comprising a pair of electrodes (e.g., 24a and 26a); a manifold (48) configured to deliver (i.e. capable of delivering) a fluid to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the pair of electrodes are adapted configured to energize (i.e. capable of energizing) the fluid delivered from the manifold before being deposited onto the article.
However, Roche et al. fail to disclose a fluid collection system wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold
Spence discloses providing a similar system for treating an article using a fluid delivered via a manifold, the system comprising, inter alia, a fluid collection system (see, e.g., Fig. 1, an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4), oil-free compressor (13), filter (14) and chiller (15)) wherein at least a portion of the fluid is captured by the fluid collection system and resupplied to the manifold for the purpose of recycling the fluid, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid for article treatment (see, e.g., column 4, rows 44-58). Although, not expressly disclosed in Spence, one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a fluid collection system in Roche et al. in order recycle the fluid for subsequent article treatment, i.e. converting waste fluid into newly useable fluid for article treatment, as taught by Spencer, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious (or know) that recycling would minimize resources used by the system and thus make use of the system more economical.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Roche et al., Roche et al. disclose an exhaust system (72 considered equivalent to conduit) is disposed relatively below the module such that at least a portion of the energized fluid which is not deposited may be collected. Additionally, Spence disclose the fluid collection system comprising an exhaust system/pipe (pipes exiting 4) disposed relatively below the module such that at least a portion of the fluid that is not deposited onto the article can be collected.
With respect to claim 7, Roche et al. disclose the system further comprises a lacing system (64a-b, 65 [considered equivalent to clamp/fixing means]) configured to guide (i.e. capable of guiding) the article adjacent to the module.
With respect to claim 8, in Roche et al., the manifold comprises a plurality of inlet manifold tubes (24a) which comprise a plurality of apertures (i.e. pores) for delivery of the fluid.
With respect to claim 9, in Roche et al., a conduit (22a) extends into at least one inlet manifold tube of the plurality of inlet manifold tubes.
With respect to claim 12, in Roche et al., the segment is a first segment (Fig. 3A, 62) and the system further comprises a second segment (e.g., Fig. 3A, 68 and/or 104), wherein each of the first segment and the second segment is joined at a seal (e.g., 92 and/or 94).
With respect to claim 13, in Roche et al., an entry seal (78) is mounted onto a segment and configured to seal the segment from atmosphere.
With respect to claims 14, which is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 15, in Roche et al., plasma is formed (i.e. is capable of being formed) between the pair of electrodes when the fluid is energized.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Newly relied upon prior art reference discloses making use of a fluid collection system as claimed and as is well-known in the art.
Conclusion
The (prior) art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 2012/0279658 discloses a plasma processing chamber designed to operate at vacuum pressure. USP 2014/0076861 discloses an atmospheric-pressure plasma processing apparatus and method. USP Pub. 2022/0134303 discloses a system for treating an article including a fluid collection system
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights