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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 June 2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. Thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, it is not clear that all references have been provided as intended. For example, the Pub. No. 2020/0138382 and its listed date do not match, what appears to be the corresponding document on the search report (page 3) or written opinion (page 3), nor does the reference appear to refer to the subject matter referenced in the search report and written opinion. Applicant is invited to correct and/or clarify.
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: 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.
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 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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-2 and 15 recite the limitation “the electrodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites both “a pair of electrodes” and “the electrodes”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that all subsequent recitations were meant to refer to “the pair of electrodes” and has examined accordingly.
Claims 2 and 14 recite the limitation “the fluids” or “fluids”. Claim 1 recites a/the fluid. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that all subsequent recitations were meant to refer to “the fluid” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 6-7 and 14 recite the limitation “the modules”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites a/the module. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that all recitations of modules were meant to refer to “the module” and has examined accordingly.
Claims 6-7 recite the limitation “the substrate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites an/the article. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that all recitations of substrate were meant to refer to “the article” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the energised fluids”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites a fluid is energised. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that all recitations were meant to refer to “the energized fluid” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the inlet manifold tube”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 8 recites a plurality of inlet manifold tubes. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to “at least one inlet manifold tube of the plurality of inlet manifold tubes” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 12 recites “two segments” without relating the same to the previously recited a/the segment. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer “at least two including the segment” and has examined accordingly.
Claims 13 recites the limitation “a segment”. Claim 1 already recites a segment. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that all subsequent recitations were meant to refer to “the segment” and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested. In addition, Applicant and Applicant’s Attorneys are respectfully requested t to align the present claim set and any future claim sets with US practice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0175987 to Creyghton et al.
Regarding claim 1: Creyghton et al. disclose a system for treating an article, wherein the system comprises: a segment (e.g., Fig. 13, 1a) adapted 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) for delivering a fluid to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the electrodes are adapted to energize the fluid delivered from the manifold before being deposited onto the article.
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 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 can be formed (i.e. is capable of being formed) between the pair of electrodes when the fluid is energized.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR Pub. No. 101098083.
Regarding claim 1: ‘083 discloses a system for treating an article, wherein the system comprises: a segment (e.g., Fig. 10, M2) adapted 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) for delivering a fluid to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the pair of electrodes are adapted to energize the fluid delivered from the manifold before being deposited onto the article.
With respect to claim 2, ‘083 discloses the segment further comprises a bias means (bias plate, 51) which may attract 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 adapted to mate with and releasably fix the module in a desired position (e.g., using bolts 56).
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 can be 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 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0045168 to Hanson et al.
Regarding claim 1: Hanson et al. disclose a system for treating an article, wherein the system comprises: a segment (e.g., Fig. 1, 10) adapted 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’) for delivering a fluid to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the pair of electrodes are adapted to energize the fluid delivered from the manifold before being deposited onto the article.
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 adapted to mate with and releasably fix the module in a desired position (see, e.g., para. 30).
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]) for 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 can be formed (i.e. is capable of being formed) between the pair of electrodes when the fluid is energized.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0156857 to Weng et al.
Regarding claim 1: Weng et al. disclose a system for treating an article, wherein the system comprises: a segment (e.g., Figs. 2-4 and 6, area in and around 200) adapted/capable to contain 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) for delivering a fluid to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the pair of electrodes are adapted to energize the fluid delivered from the manifold before being deposited onto the article.
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) to power 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 Weng et al., plasma can be formed (i.e. is capable of being formed) between the electrodes when the fluid is energized.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,610,765 to Roche et al.
Regarding claim 1: Roche et al. disclose a system for treating an article, wherein the system comprises: a segment (e.g., Figs. 1-3B, 10) adapted/capable to contain 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) for delivering a fluid to the pair of electrodes; and wherein the pair of electrodes are adapted to energize the fluid delivered from the manifold before being deposited onto the article.
With respect to claim 6, 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.
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]) for 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 system comprises at least two segments (e.g., Fig. 3A, 68, 10 and 104), including the segment, wherein each segment is joined at a seal (e.g., 78, 92 and/or 94) to an adjacent segment of the at least two segments.
With respect to claim 13, in Roche et al., the system comprises at least two segments (e.g., Fig. 3A, 68, 10 and 104), including the segment, and an entry seal (e.g., 78 and 84) is mounted onto a segment of the at least two segments and adapted to seal the segment from external 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 can be formed (i.e. is capable of being formed) between the pair of electrodes when the fluid is energized.
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.
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