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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 27 January 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 4-13 are pending with claims 2-3 being cancelled and claims 14-24 being withdrawn due to being directed to the non-elected invention.
Amendments to the abstract are sufficient to overcome the previously presented objection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The inclusion of the limitations previously presented in the dependent claims 2-3 in to the independent claim is not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections previously presented to those limitations. The applicant argues that Yildirim does not teach the limitation a planar electrode with an electrically insulated annular flow channel built through it. However, as explained in Non-Final Office Action mailed 30 October 2025 Yildirim explicitly teaches 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]). Therefore, a combination of Yildirim in view of Higashiyama would render the current invention obvious.
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 4-5, and 13 with respect to Yildirim in view of Higashiyama are maintained. Additionally, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 6-10 with respect to Yildirim and Higashiyama in view of Hancock are maintained and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 11-12 with respect to Yildirim, Higashiyama, and Hancock in view of Juluri and Grabowski are maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 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 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 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. 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]).
Yildirim and Higashiyama 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]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yildirim and Higashiyama teaches the 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); the powered dielectric of the planar DBD device is adjacent the 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).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yildirim 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 a 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 and Higashiyama in view of Hancock (US 20230165986 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yildirim 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, 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 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, Higashiyama, and Hancock teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the 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 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 annular flow channel input opening (cover disposed on or over the dielectric barrier which may include plastic, paragraph [0082], Yildirim).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yildirim, 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 saturated air to a grounded target object to form a discharge stagnation plane whenever DBD discharge is initiated (quartz tube is a plasma generation region, paragraph [0072], Hancock).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yildirim, 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 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, 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 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, Higashiyama, and Hancock in view of Juluri (US 20160089545 A1) and Grabowski (EP 3085244 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yildirim, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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