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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 28 May 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 4-13 are pending with claims 2-3 being cancelled and claims 14-24 being withdrawn from consideration due to being directed to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13 of the applicant’s response, filed 28 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Yildirim with respect to Liao (US 20120063966 A1) and Higashiyama.
While Yildirim in view of Higashiyama does not teach the electrically insulated annular flow channel formed concentrically therethrough wherein the airflows centrally through the planar powered electrode via the electrically insulated annular flow channel and not around an exterior of the planar powered electrode. Liao teaches the electrically insulated annular flow channel formed concentrically therethrough wherein the airflows centrally through the planar powered electrode via the electrically insulated annular flow channel and not around an exterior of the planar powered electrode (Figure 1 gas transmission through dielectric inner rube “47” through center of electrode “45”).
Similarly the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 4-5 and 13 are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are made in view of Yildirim with respect Liao and Higashiyama. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 6-10 are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are made in view of Yildirim, Liao, and Higashiyama with respect to Hancock. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 11-12 are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are made in view of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Handcock with respect to Juluri and Grabowski.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-13 in the reply filed on 27 January 2026 is acknowledged.
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, 4-5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yildirim (US 20200038530 A1) in view of Liao (US 20120063966 A1) and Higashiyama (US 20180296714 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yildirim teaches a method for disinfection of a target object including surfaces and equipment (method of treating a biological surface, abstract) comprising apply to the target object atmospheric pressure dielectric barrier discharge operating in a moisture continuous airflow as the discharge medium (cold atmospheric plasma treatment device with a dielectric barrier, paragraph [0076], and precursor is a liquid vapor, paragraph [0157]) by using a plasma dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) device having a planar powered electrode (Figure 16 planar electrodes “114” and “115” connected to radio frequency source “112”) with an electrically insulated annular flow channel formed therethrough (electrodes are disposed along an air conduit, paragraph [0139], and electromagnetic field generator units form a continuous or non-continuous ring of units encircling the plasma stream, paragraph [0199]), wherein the moisture airflow flows through the annular flow channel to form a uniform stagnation discharge plane between a powered dielectric of the planar DBD device and the target object resulting in a flowing humid discharge medium from the powered electrode (precursor is a liquid vapor, paragraph [0157], and Figure 18 plasma “118” is formed in region formed by flexible skirt “170” that is impermeable to gases between electrodes “114” and “115” and target surface “210”), but does not teach wherein the moisture continuous airflow is saturated and the electrically insulated annular flow channel formed concentrically therethrough wherein the airflows centrally through the planar powered electrode via the electrically insulated annular flow channel and not around an exterior of the planar powered electrode. However, Higashiyama teaches a moisture saturated continuous air flow as the discharge medium (reactive oxygen species-containing gas contained water in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of saturated steam, abstract, and gas has a relative humidity of 100% or more, paragraph [0031]), but does not teach the electrically insulated annular flow channel formed concentrically therethrough wherein the airflows centrally through the planar powered electrode via the electrically insulated annular flow channel and not around an exterior of the planar powered electrode. Liao teaches the electrically insulated annular flow channel formed concentrically therethrough wherein the airflows centrally through the planar powered electrode via the electrically insulated annular flow channel and not around an exterior of the planar powered electrode (Figure 1 gas transmission through dielectric inner rube “47” through center of electrode “45”).
Yildirim, Higashiyama, and Liao are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of dielectric barrier discharge sterilization methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dielectric barrier discharge sterilizing method taught by Yildirim with the moisture saturated airflow taught by Higashiyama because Higashiyama teaches the large amount of water would produce a large amount of reactive oxygen species and increase sterilization activity (paragraph [0031]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dielectric barrier discharge sterilizing method with the concentrically constructed electrode and annual channel taught by Liao because Liao teaches that the dielectric inner tube can advantageously conduct a first gas through the gas transmission chamber to the outlet while separating the electrode from a separate hollow metal tube delivering a second gas (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yildirim, Liao, and Higashiyama teaches the electrically insulated annular flow channel has a respective input opening and output opening (Figure 11B flow is received from reservoir “180” into a conduit “184” and exuded through an exuding surface “186”, Yildirim, and Figure 1 dielectric inner tube “47”, Liao); the powered dielectric of the planar DBD device is adjacent the electrically insulated annular channel output opening (Figure 11B plasma “118” is formed in region formed by flexible skirt “170” that is impermeable to gases between dielectric “116" adjacent to outlet “186” and target surface “210”, Yildirim); and the dielectric barrier discharge is initiated in the uniform stagnation discharge plane formed by the moisture saturated airflow between a surface of the powered dielectric and a grounded target object (Figure 1 microplasma generated at second outlet “473” between electrode “45” and dielectric tube “47” and grounded object “60”, Liao).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yildirim, Liao, and Higashiyama teaches implementing a portable system for producing the discharge medium (device is incorporated as a handheld device, paragraph [0010], Yildirim); and using the discharging medium for disinfecting at least one of surfaces of personal protective equipment (PPE), mask airways, tubing, furniture, patient stirrups, straps, electronic apparatus, computer keyboards, or monitors (using cold plasma treatment system in conjunction with a face mask, paragraph [0152], Yildirim).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yildirim and Higashiyama teaches wherein the discharge medium includes reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS) for disinfecting effect on the target object (plasma precursor generate reactive oxygen or nitrogen species, paragraph [0025], Yildirim).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yildirim, Liao, and Higashiyama in view of Hancock (US 20230165986 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yildirim, Liao, and Higashiyama teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the planar powered electrode comprises a copper electrode (electrode includes a copper mesh, paragraph [0111], Yildirim) received between an associated tube and a quartz disc (Figure 18 electrodes “114” and “115” between tube “514” and quartz filter “190”, Yildirim) with the copper electrode and quartz tube at least partially surrounded by a thermoplastic housing (cover disposed on or over the dielectric barrier which may include plastic, paragraph [0082], Yildirim), but does not teach wherein the associated tube is made of quartz. However, Hancock teaches wherein the associated tube is made of quartz (quartz tube is positioned within the annular region, paragraph [0072]).
Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of dielectric barrier discharge sterilization methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dielectric barrier discharge sterilizing method taught by Yildirim, Liao, and Higashiyama with the quartz tube taught by Hancock because Hancock teaches the quartz tube will increase the electric field thus increases the production of plasma (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the electrically insulated annular flow channel has a respective input opening and output opening (Figure 11B flow is received from reservoir “180” into a conduit “184” and exuded through an exuding surface “186”, Yildirim, and Figure 1 dielectric inner tube “47”, Liao); and the thermoplastic housing is connected to an inlet tube carrying air saturated with water vapor (water-containing air, paragraph [0040], and gas has a relative humidity of 100% or more, paragraph [0031], Higashiyama) into the electrically insulated annular flow channel input opening (cover disposed on or over the dielectric barrier which may include plastic, paragraph [0082], Yildirim, and Figure 1 dielectric inner tube “47”, Liao).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock teaches controllably powering the copper electrode with a pulsed DBD power supply for a predetermined period of time used to initiate DBD discharge (device includes controls including plasma power switch and plasma pulse control, paragraph [0011], and controller determined treatment duration, paragraph [0123], Yildirim); and wherein the quartz tube serves as a passage for the moisture saturated air to a grounded target object to form the uniform stagnation discharge plane whenever DBD discharge is initiated (quartz tube is a plasma generation region, paragraph [0072], Hancock).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock teaches wherein the predetermined period of time is in a range of from about 2 minutes to about 10 minutes (period of 1-10 minutes coincides with the predicted duration of the skin treatment, paragraph [0163], Yildirim). While the combination of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock does not explicitly teach wherein the range is from about 2 minutes to about 10 minutes, in the case of overlapping ranges, there exists a case of prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to optimize the time range to about 2 minutes to about 10 minutes to achieve the desired sterilization effect (See MPEP 2144.05 I – II (A)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock teaches wherein the predetermined period of time is at least 10 minutes (period of 1-10 minutes coincides with the predicted duration of the skin treatment, paragraph [0163], Yildirim). While the combination of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock does not explicitly teach wherein the range is at least 10 minutes, in the case of overlapping ranges, there exists a case of prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to optimize the time range to be at least 10 minutes to achieve the desired sterilization effect (See MPEP 2144.05 I – II (A)).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock in view of Juluri (US 20160089545 A1) and Grabowski (EP 3085244 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the pulsed DBD power supply comprises a regulated 15-25 kV, 50-4000 Hz, 300W pulsed DBD power supply used to initiate the DBD discharge. However, Juluri teaches wherein the pulsed DBD power supply comprises a regulated 15-25 kV (voltage magnitude of 20kV, paragraph [0041]) and 50-4000 Hz (50 Hz to 3.5 kHz, paragraph [0041]), but does not teach wherein the power supply is 300W. However, Grabowski teaches wherein the power supply is 300W (reactor has a power of 0 to 350 W, paragraph [0004]). While Grabowski does not explicitly teach wherein the power supply is 300W, in the case of overlapping ranges, there exists a case of prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the power density of the power supply to be at least 0.5 W/cm2 to achieve the desired sterilization effect through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II(A)).
Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Juluri and Grabowski are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of pulsed plasma generators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dielectric barrier discharge sterilizing method taught by Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, and Hancock with the power supplies taught by Juluri and Grabowski because Juluri teaches the voltage and frequency of the power supply allows the plasma jet to generated in direct contact with the object/tissue (paragraph [0041]) and Grabowski teaches wattage of the power supply enables corona discharge (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, Hancock, Juluri, and Grabowski teaches operating the pulsed DBD power supply with a pulse-width of less than 1.0 ms (power supply is a microsecond pulsed power supply, paragraph [0041], Juluri) and so as to maintain a power density of at least 0.5 W/cm2 (power density of 0.1-10 W/cm2, paragraph [0041], Juluri).
While the combination of Yildirim, Liao, Higashiyama, Hancock, Juluri, and Grabowski does not explicitly teaches wherein the power density of at least 0.5 W/cm2, in the case of overlapping ranges, there exists a case of prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the power density of the power supply to be at least 0.5 W/cm2 to achieve the desired sterilization effect through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II(A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights