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 Status
Claims 1-12 are pending:
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (US 2018/0130646) in view of Eden (US 2015/0008825).
Regarding claim 1, Louis teaches an apparatus for treating water, the apparatus comprising: a reaction chamber (chamber holding fluid 426) having an air-water interface (Fig. 7A-7B and ¶115); a plasma applicator (the combination of high voltage electrode 406, dielectric barrier 410 and conductive element 450) disposed in air in proximity to the air-water interface (see Fig. 7A); wherein the plasma applicator includes a solid dielectric plate (i.e. dielectric barrier 410) sandwiched between a first electrode (i.e. high voltage electrode 450) and a second electrode (i.e. conductive element 406), wherein the first electrode is closer to the water than the second electrode (see Fig. 7B shows high voltage electrode 450 closer to fluid 426 than conductive element 406) and …wherein the apparatus is configured to generate a plasma (afterglow 360) between the first insulating layer and the air-water interface during operation (Fig. 3D; ¶93).
Louis does not teach wherein the plasma applicator further includes a first insulating layer disposed on the first electrode.
In a related field of endeavor, Eden teaches a micro plasma jet device (see ABS) wherein the plasma applicator further includes a first insulating layer disposed on the first electrode; wherein the apparatus is configured to generate a plasma between the first insulating layer and the air-water interface during operation (Fig. 2D; ¶8 and ¶49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasma application of Louis by incorporating an insulating layer on the first electrode as disclosed by Eden because it increases the plasma covering area (Eden, see ¶6-¶8).
Regarding claim 2, Louis and Eden teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to provide nitrogen in water as nitrates and/or nitrites (Louis, see ¶70).
Regarding claim 3, Louis and Eden teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to acidify water (Louis, ¶79).
Regarding claim 4, Louis and Eden teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plasma has an electron energy range from 1 eV to 10 eV (Louis, ¶69) and wherein the plasma has a gas temperature of 10000C or less (Louis, ¶69).
While Louis teaches the claimed operating parameters and/or capable of performing said parameters, said parameters do not add patentable weight to the claims because the manner of operating the device pertains to a method/process step. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding claim 5, Louis and Eden teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first electrode is configured in a pattern selected from the group consisting of: square meshes rectangular meshes, triangular meshes, hexagonal meshes and 1D arrays of elements (Louis, Fig. 26A shows hexagonal meshes and ¶110).
Regarding claim 6, Louis and Eden teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reaction chamber is configured as a water reservoir (Louis, Fig. 6 and ¶115).
Regarding claim 7, Louis and Eden teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reaction chamber is configured as a flow chamber through which water from a reservoir is pumped (Louis, Fig. 6 and ¶115).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (US 2018/0130646) in view of Eden (US 2015/0008825) and further in view of Denvir (US 2014/0326681).
Regarding claim 8, Louis and Eden teach the apparatus of claim 1.
The combination does not teach further comprising a gas circulation system.
In a related field of endeavor, Denvir teaches a system and method for treating water systems with high voltage discharge and ozone (see ABS) comprising a gas circulation system (gas infusing system 28; gas infusing system 28, which infuses water stream 18 with fine bubbles of air and/or gas. Preferably, gas infusing system 28 comprises one or more micro-bubbler devices 20, where air or gas 22, reactive gas 26, and/or ozone 30 are introduced into the water stream as fine bubbles upstream of plasma reaction chamber 36, see ¶22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Louis by incorporating a gas circulation system as disclosed by Denvir because it increases the periods of time without damaging the other components of the water system (Denvir, see ¶11-¶12).
Regarding claim 9, Louis, Eden and Denvir teach the apparatus of claim 8 wherein the gas circulation system is configured to bubble air containing activated chemical species from the plasma through the water (Denvir, see ¶13 and ¶22).
Regarding claim 10, Louis, Eden and Denvir teach the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the gas circulation system is configured to provide oxygenated air to the plasma (Denvir, see ¶13 and ¶22).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (US 2018/0130646) in view of Eden (US 2015/0008825) and further in view of Dhindisa (US 2010/0151687).
Regarding claim 11, Louis and Eden teach the apparatus of claim 1.
The combination does not teach further comprising a heat sink affixed to the plasma applicator.
In a related field of endeavor, Dhindisa teaches an apparatus including showerhead electrode (see ABS) comprising a heat sink (top plate 800) affixed to the plasma applicator (plasma processing apparatus 100; the top plate 800 to cool the heater 700 which then acts as a heat sink for the upper showerhead electrode 200 and thus cools the upper showerhead electrode 200, see ¶24) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasma applicator of Louis by incorporating a heat sink as disclosed by Dhindisa because it facilitates and maintains a predetermined temperature in the electrode (Dhindisa, see ¶2).
Regarding claim 12, Louis and Eden teach the apparatus of claim 11.
Louis and Eden do not teach a second insulating layer sandwiched between the second electrode and the heat sink.
Dhindisa further teaches an insulating layer (insulator 600) sandwiched between the second electrode (upper showerhead electrode 200) and the heat sink (top plate 800).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Louis by incorporating an insulating layer sandwiched between the second electrode and the heat sink disclosed by Dhindisa because it facilitates and maintains a predetermined temperature in the electrode (Dhindisa, see ¶2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773