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 6/29/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b). Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim appears incomplete or the language is confusing, “the nozzle is at least one” (one what?). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penny et al. (US 7,785,322) (“Penny”). Penny discloses:
(claim 1) A plasma treatment device (Fig. 1), comprising: a handpiece 16 for generating plasma and emitting the generated plasma onto skin; a main body 10 for supplying voltage 300 and gas 221 to the handpiece; and a hybrid cable 18 connecting the main body and the handpiece, wherein the handpiece amplifies a low voltage to a high voltage to generate the plasma. See abstract, C7L19-30, Fig. 3.
Claim 2: the handpiece includes: a plasma generating unit 29 for generating the plasma by being supplied with the voltage and the gas; a plasma output unit 16B for emitting the plasma onto the skin; and a handpiece tip 29A positioned on a front surface of the plasma output unit to maintain a constant distance between the plasma output unit and the skin, and the plasma is generated by amplifying a direct current voltage of 9 V to 10 V to an alternating current voltage of 700 V to 900 V at a frequency of 18 kHz to 20 kHz.
The amplification of the low voltage to a high voltage to generate the plasma as claimed in claim 1 and the specific voltages in claim 2 is a result effective variable. In accordance with KSR, the Board stated that when there is motivation to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Here, the voltages and frequencies are result effective variables (also claim 7) for the production of the plasma controllable by a controller 210 for the purpose of setting the power output mode as necessary C7L19-30.
Claim 3: the plasma generating unit includes a dielectric including one or more of quartz, sapphire, glass, ceramic, polymer film, and polyetherimide (PEI). 29, C7L1-10
Claim 4: the plasma output unit is formed with a nozzle 29A which emits the plasma, and the nozzle is at least one.
Claim 5: the handpiece tip is replaceable.C6L60,C7L11-18
Claim 6: the main body includes: (see Fig. 3) a power unit 204 for receiving an alternating current voltage; a converter 202 for converting the alternating current voltage to a direct current voltage; a pneumatic unit 220 for controlling the flow rate and output of the gas; a control unit 210 for controlling an overall system operation; and a monitor 212 for displaying medical information.
Claim 8: the pneumatic unit includes: a pressure sensor for measuring a pressure of the gas; an electronic valve for controlling an output of the gas; and a flow controller for controlling a flow rate of the gas. Fig. 3
Claim 10: the main body including a ventilation opening 400 for dissipating heat within the main body.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penny in view of Goble et al. (US 2004/0186470) (“Goble”).
Penny discloses the invention as substantially claimed including the use of nitrogen gas in the plasma generating system C6L27-42. Goble, in the analogous art, teaches this same type of system but with the use of argon gas [0016]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Penny with the argon gas as taught by Goble as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANNA K HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am- 4:30pm 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/DEANNA K HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights