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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of species A in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the office has not clearly identified why the listed species are patentably distinct. This is not found persuasive because Examiner stated in the Restriction Requirement mailed 2/10/2026 that “The species are independent or distinct because they have mutually exclusive characteristics regarding the targeted ozone”. Species A for example is mutually exclusive from species B, C, and D. If the targeted ozone amount is below 0.1 ppm as required in species A, the targeted ozone amount is not capable of being between 0.1 and 0.15 ppm as required by species B, between 0.15 and 0.2 ppm as required by species C, or above 0.2 ppm as required by species D. Each species is a distinct range which does not overlap with another species and is mutually exclusive. Applicant argues that species A and species B are not patentably distinct from each other and as a result there is not an undue burden on the Examiner to search at least Species A and Species B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics . Additionally, as stated in the Restriction Requirement mailed 2/10/2026 , t he species require a different field of search (E.G. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and/or prior art applicable to one group would not likely be applicable to another group. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Applicant’s election without traverse of species E in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claim s 3-5, 11-13, and 25-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/10/2026. It is noted that claim s 25-26 have been withdrawn as the elected targeted amount of ozone is below 0 .1 ppm. The targeted concentration of ozone in claims 25-26 is above 0.2 ppm. As species D was not elected, claim 25-26 have also been withdrawn in addition to claims 3-5 and 11-13. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 9/14/2023, 2/5/2024, 2/5/2024, 6/21/2024, 6/21/2024, 11/19/2024, 12/29/2025, and 2/19/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The dra wings are objected to because: Figure 7-9, 13A-13B, 14A-14B contains improper shading, which may affect clarity once reproduced. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: item 516 and item 722 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 recites “and ozone sensor”. Examiner suggests replacing “and ozone sensor” with “and the ozone sensor” to put the claim in clearer form as antecedent basis is already present for the ozone sensor. Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 recites “and ozone sensor”. Examiner suggests replacing “and ozone sensor” with “and the ozone sensor” to put the claim in clearer form as antecedent basis is already present for the ozone sensor. Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3-4 recites “the at least a portion of the oxygen”. As the portion of oxygen has already been introduced, Examiner suggests replacing “the at least a portion of the oxygen” with “at least the portion of the oxygen”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-2, 6-10, and 14-24 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. In regard to claim 1, Line 4 recites “an ozone generator in communication with the medical gas”. The medical gas is not positively required by the claim as the chamber is configured to receive a medical gas. It is unclear by positively stating that the ozone generator is in communication with the medical gas, if the medical gas is now positively required by the claim. For examination purposes Examiner construes the medical gas to not be positively required by the claim. Examiner suggests replacing “an ozone generator in communication with the medical gas” in line 4 of claim 1 with “an ozone generator configured to be in communication with the medical gas”. Examiner notes claims 2 , 6-10, and 14-24 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. In regard to claim 6, Line 3-4 recites “a channel through which surgery is performed”. It is unclear if claim 6 is requiring the method step of preforming surgery due to the positive phrase “which surgery is performed”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p). For examination purposes Examiner construes “a channel through which surgery is performed” to be “a channel for performing surgery through”. Examiner suggests replacing “a channel through which surgery is performed” in line 3-4 of claim 6 with “a channel for performing surgery through”. In regard to claim 10, Line 1-2 recites “the targeted amount of ozone”. Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and claim 1. Claim 1 and claim 9 both introduce a targeted amount of ozone. It is unclear which targeted amount of ozone, the targeted amount of ozone of claim 10 refers to. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the targeted amount of ozone” to be either the targeted amount of ozone of claim 9 or claim 1. Examiner suggests clarifying which targeted amount of ozone claim 10 refers to. In regard to claim 14, Line 2 recites “an electro-ionic device in communication with the medical gas”. Claim 14 depends on claim 1 The medical gas is not positively required by claim 1 as the chamber is configured to receive a medical gas in claim 1. It is unclear by positively stating that the electro-ionic device is in communication with the medical gas, if the medical gas is now positively required by the claim. For examination purposes Examiner construes the medical gas to not be positively required by the claim. Examiner suggests replacing “an electro-ionic device in communication with the medical gas” in line 2 of claim 1 4 with “ an electro-ionic device configured to be in communication with the medical gas” . Examiner notes claims 15-20 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 4 . In regard to claim 18, Line 1-2 recites “ wherein the electro-ionic device employs an operational voltage of 10 kV to 100 kV ” . It is unclear if claim 18 is requiring a method step due to the positive term “employs”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p). For examination purposes Examiner construes “ wherein the electro-ionic device employs an operational voltage of 10 kV to 100 kV ” to be “ wherein the electro-ionic device is configured to employ an operational voltage of 10 kV to 100 kV ”. Examiner suggests replacing “ wherein the electro-ionic device employs an operational voltage of 10 kV to 100 kV ” in line 1-2 of claim 18 with “ wherein the electro-ionic device is configured to employ an operational voltage of 10 kV to 100 kV ”. In regard to claim 20, Line 1-2 recites “ wherein the electro-ionic device employs an electric field strength of at least 5 kV/cm ”. It is unclear if claim 20 is requiring a method step due to the positive term “employs”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p). For examination purposes Examiner construes “ wherein the electro-ionic device employs an electric field strength of at least 5 kV/cm ” to be “ wherein the electro-ionic device is configured to employ an electric field strength of at least 5 kV/cm ” . Examiner suggests replacing “ wherein the electro-ionic device employs an electric field strength of at least 5 kV/cm ” in line 1-2 of claim 20 with “ wherein the electro-ionic device is configured to employ an electric field strength of at least 5 kV/cm ” . In regard to claim 23, Line 2 recites “an ozone sensor providing ozone measurements”. It is unclear if claim 23 is requiring a method step due to the positive term “providing”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p). For examination purposes Examiner construes “an ozone sensor providing ozone measurements” to be “an ozone sensor configured to provide ozone measurements”. Examiner suggests replacing “an ozone sensor providing ozone measurements” in line 2 of claim 23 with “an ozone sensor configured to provide ozone measurements”. Line 2-3 recites “the vented medical gas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Claim 23 depends on claim 22, 21, and 1. Claim 21 recites “configured to vent the ozonated medical gas from the patient body”. The ozonated medical gas, not the medical gas is claimed as being vented from the patient body. It is unclear if the vented medical gas refers to the ozonated medical gas which has been vented or to the medical gas which is vented. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the vented medical gas” to be “the ozonated medical gas”. Examiner suggests replacing “the vented medical gas is released to atmosphere ” with “the ozonated medical gas is released to atmosphere through the vent”. In regard to claim 24, Line 2 recites “acts to maintain”. It is unclear if claim 24 is requiring a method step due to the positive term “acts”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p). For examination purposes Examiner construes “acts to maintain” to be “is configured to act to maintain”. Examiner suggests replacing “acts to maintain” in line 2 of claim 24 with “is configured to act to maintain”. Line 2 recites “the vented medical gas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Claim 24 depends on claim 22, 21, and 1. Claim 21 recites “configured to vent the ozonated medical gas from the patient body”. The ozonated medical gas, not the medical gas is claimed as being vented from the patient body. It is unclear if the vented medical gas refers to the ozonated medical gas which has been vented or to the medical gas which is vented. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the vented medical gas” to be “the ozonated medical gas”. Examiner suggests replacing “the vented medical gas” with “the ozonated medical gas that is vented ”. 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 , 6 -8 , 14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrmann (U.S. PG publication 20100114011). In regard to claim 1, Herrmann discloses a medical insufflation device (see all of figure 1 -3 ; paragraph [0006] and [0040]) for use on a patient body (paragraph [0040]) , the medical insufflation device comprising: a chamber (ozone tube 8 , tube 12, tube 15, and item 17 ; see figure 2 ) configured to receive a medical gas at least including oxygen (paragraph [0041]; wherein oxygen is received in tube 8 via the supply of oxygen being connected to tube 3 and tube 7, and tube 7 being connected to item 8 as shown in figure 2 and described in paragraph [0041]) ; an ozone generator (ozone generator control system 10 and ignition coil 9) in communication with the medical gas (paragraph [0041]) and configured to generate an ozonated medical gas by converting at least a portion of the oxygen in the medical gas into ozone (paragraph [0041]) ; an instrument ( cannula /application set used to deliver fluid to the abdominal cavity described in paragraph [0025] and [0051] ) configured to be introduced into the patient body (Examiner notes “configured to be introduced into the patient body is a functional limitation. The cannula is fully capable of the recited function due to its structure as supported by paragraph [0025] and [0051]) , the instrument further configured to receive the ozonated medical gas from the chamber and convey the ozonated medical gas into the patient body (paragraph [0025] and [0050]-[0051]) ; and a controller (electronic control system; paragraph [0018]) configured to control the medical insufflation device such that the ozonated medical gas conveyed to the patient body by the instrument is at a targeted amount of ozone (paragraph [0018]-[0019]) . In regard to claim 6, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 1, wherein the instrument includes at least one of a viewing instrument facilitating internal viewing within the patient body, a medical instrument for performing a surgical procedure, or a channel through which surgery is performed (Examiner notes the instrument includes a medical instrument for performing a surgical procedure i.e. providing gas to the body) . In regard to claim 7, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the ozone generator is located in the chamber (see figure 2) . In regard to claim 8, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 1, further comprising: a pressure sensor (pressure sensor device 19; paragraph [0042]) configured to measure a gas pressure at least associated with the ozonated medical gas (paragraph [0042]-[0043]) ; and an ozone sensor (ozone analyzer; paragraph [0041]) configured to measure an ozone concentration of the ozonated medical gas (paragraph [0041]) , wherein the controller is configured to control the medical insufflation device based on measured values from the pressure sensor and ozone sensor such that the ozonated medical gas conveyed to the patient body by the instrument is at the targeted amount of ozone (paragraph [0041] , [0023]-[0024] ) . In regard to claim 14, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 1, wherein the ozone generator includes an electro-ionic device (ignition coil 9; paragraph [0041]) in communication with the medical gas and configured to generate the ozonated medical gas by converting the at least a portion of the oxygen in the medical gas into ozone (paragraph [0041]) . In regard to claim 21, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 1, further comprising a vent (tubing 27 and 29, valve, and catalyzer 24 and 30 described in paragraph [0045] -[0046] which functions as a vent as supported by paragraph [0053] and [0056]) attachable to the patient body and configured to vent the ozonated medical gas from the patient body (paragraph [0056]) . In regard to claim 22, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 21, wherein the vent includes an ozone decomposition element ( item 24 and 30 ; paragraph [0053] and [0056] ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 2 and 2 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. PG publication 20100114011) further in view of Perez (ES 2629065). See attached English translation of Perez (ES 2629065) which is being referenced in the rejection below. In regard to claim 2, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 1 . Herrmann is silent as to wherein the targeted amount of ozone is below 0.1 ppm. Perez teaches wherein the targeted amount of ozone is below 0.1 ppm (see page 2, line 7-15 and page 2, line 34-36 of the attached English translation of Perez) . Therefore, 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 Herrmann to include wherein the targeted amount of ozone is below 0.1 ppm, as taught by Perez , for the purpose of reducing inflammation (see page 2, line 7-15 and page 2, line 34-36 of the attached English translation of Perez). In regard to claim 24, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 22, wherein the ozone decomposition element acts to maintain the vented medical gas at an ozone concentration of below 0.05 ppm (paragraph [0046]). Herrmann is silent as to wherein the ozone decomposition element acts to maintain the vented medical gas at an ozone concentration of below 0.05 ppm when the targeted amount of ozone is above 0.05 ppm. Perez teaches wherein the targeted amount of ozone is above 0.05 ppm and below 0.1 ppm (see page 2, line 7-15 and page 2, line 34-36 of the attached English translation of Perez) . Therefore, 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 Herrmann to include wherein the targeted amount of ozone is above 0.05 ppm and below 0.1 ppm, as taught by Perez , for the purpose of reducing inflammation (see page 2, line 7-15 and page 2, line 34-36 of the attached English translation of Perez). It is noted since item 24 and 27 of Herrmann functions to remove all ozone , therefore the ozone decomposition element of Hermann acts to maintain the vented medical gas at an ozone concentration of below 0.05 ppm when the targeted amount of ozone is above 0.05 ppm . Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. PG publication 20100114011) further in view of Howard (U.S. PG publication 20200171444). In regard to claim 9, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 1, further comprising: a pressure sensor (pressure sensor device 19; paragraph [0042]) configured to measure a gas pressure of the ozonated medical gas in the chamber (paragraph [0042]-[0043]) ; an ozone sensor (ozone analyzer; paragraph [0041]) configured to measure an ozone concentration of the ozonated medical gas in the chamber (paragraph [0041]) ; a first valve (oxygen valve 2) configured to regulate a flow of the medical gas entering the chamber (paragraph [0041]) ; and a second valve (insufflation valve 16; paragraph [0042]) configured to regulate a flow of the ozonated medical gas exiting the chamber (paragraph [0042] and [0059]) , wherein the controller is configured to control at least the first and second valves based on measured values from the pressure sensor and ozone sensor to provide a targeted amount of ozone leaving the chamber through the second valve (paragraph [0041]-[0042]: wherein t he electronic control system 14 controls the sequences for input/output interfaces, for example touch screen, mass flow controller, pressure sensors (see below), ozone analyzer, and especially valves and [0059]) . Herrmann is silent as to a first solenoid configured to regulate a flow of the medical gas entering the chamber , a second solenoid configured to regulate a flow of the ozonated medical gas exiting the chambe r. As a result, Herrmann is also silent as to wherein the controller is configured to control at least the first and second solenoids based on measured values from the pressure sensor and ozone sensor to provide a targeted amount of ozone leaving the chamber through the second solenoid . Howard teaches a valve is a solenoid valve (paragraph [0044]; wherein the solenoid valve is construed by the control system). Further, Howard teaches that a solenoid valve and other controlled-controlled valve could all be used to achieve the same result (paragraph [0044]) and thus a solenoid valve and other controlled-controlled valve were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a first solenoid valve in place of the first valve of Herrmann and a second solenoid valve in place of the second valve of Herrmann since it has been held that substituting parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Examiner notes the substitution would result in a first solenoid configured to regulate a flow of the medical gas entering the chamber , a second solenoid configured to regulate a flow of the ozonated medical gas exiting the chambe r, and wherein the controller is configured to control at least the first and second solenoids based on measured values from the pressure sensor and ozone sensor to provide a targeted amount of ozone leaving the chamber through the second solenoid . Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. PG publication 20100114011) in view of Howard (U.S. PG publication 20200171444) further in view of Perez (ES 2629065). See attached English translation of Perez (ES 2629065) which is being referenced in the rejection below. In regard to claim 10, Herrmann in view of Howard teaches the medical insufflation device of claim 9 . Herrmann in view of Howard is silent as to wherein the targeted amount of ozone is below 0.1 ppm. Perez teaches wherein the targeted amount of ozone is below 0.1 ppm (see page 2, line 7-15 and page 2, line 34-36 of the attached English translation of Perez) . Therefore, 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 Herrmann in view of Howard to include wherein the targeted amount of ozone is below 0.1 ppm, as taught by Perez , for the purpose of reducing inflammation (see page 2, line 7-15 and page 2, line 34-36 of the attached English translation of Perez). Claims 15 , 18 , and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. PG publication 20100114011) further in view of Hooper (U.S. PG publication 20080075639). In regard to claim 15, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 14 . Herrmann is silent as to wherein the electro-ionic device includes an emitter and a collector plate. Hooper teaches wherein the electro-ionic device (item 104 and 200) includes an emitter and a collector plate (outer electrode and inner electrode; paragraph [0042] and [0045]) . Therefore, 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 Herrmann to substitute the electro-ionic device of Hooper in place of the electro-ionic device of Herrmann, as taught by Hooper , because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of generating ozone (see paragraph [0045] of Hooper and paragraph [0041] of Herrmann) . In regard to claim 18, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 14 . Herrmann is silent as to wherein the electro-ionic device employs an operational voltage of 10 kV to 100 kV. Hooper teaches wherein the electro-ionic device (item 104 and 200) employs an operational voltage of 10 kV to 100 kV (paragraph [0046]) . Therefore, 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 Herrmann to substitute the electro-ionic device of Hooper in place of the electro-ionic device of Herrmann, as taught by Hooper , therefore resulting in wherein the electro-ionic device employs an operational voltage of 10 kV to 100 kV because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of generating ozone (see paragraph [0045] of Hooper and paragraph [0041] of Herrmann) . In regard to claim 20, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 14 . Herrmann fails to disclose wherein the electro-ionic device employs an electric field strength of at least 5 kV/cm. Hooper teaches wherein the electro-ionic device (item 104 and 200) employs an electric field strength (paragraph [0045]-[0046]) and that the strength of the electric field is a result effective variable that depends on voltage settings and using appropriate dielectrics (paragraph [0045]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the electric field strength of the electro-ionic device to have a strength within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting a voltage or dielectric which is disclosed as requiring adjustment depending on the desired electric field strength. Therefore, 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 Herrmann to substitute the electro-ionic device of Hooper in place of the electro-ionic device of Herrmann, as taught by Hooper , therefore resulting in wherein the electro-ionic device employs an electric field strength because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of generating ozone (see paragraph [0045] of Hooper and paragraph [0041] of Herrmann) and further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an electric field strength of at least 5 kV/cm as a matter of routine optimization as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. PG publication 20100114011) in view of Hooper (U.S. PG publication 20080075639) further in view of Yang (U.S. PG publication 20100283375) further in view of Matsuno (U.S. PG publication 20120189504) . In regard to claim 16, Herrmann in view of Hooper teaches the medical insufflation device of claim 15 . Herrmann in view of Hooper fails to disclose wherein the emitter includes an ionizer needle emitter with free ends coated with at least one of zinc, iridium, and/or tantalum. Yang teaches wherein the emitter (electrode) includes an ionizer needle emitter (paragraph [0020] , [0024] and [0026]). Therefore, 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 Herrmann i n view of Hooper to include wherein the emitter includes an ionizer needle emitter , as taught by Yang , for the purpose of enhancing the yield of ozone (paragraph [0024] of Yang) . Herrmann in view of Hooper in view of Yang fails to disclose f ree ends coated with at least one of zinc, iridium, and/or tantalum . Matsuno teaches f ree ends coated with at least one of zinc, iridium, and/or tantalum (paragraph [0048]- [0050] and [0043] ). Therefore, 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 emitter of Herrmann in view of Hooper in view of Yang to include f ree ends coated with at least one of zinc, iridium, and/or tantalum , as taught by Matsuno , for the purpose of producing an excellent catalytic effect for generating ozone gas (paragraph [0050] of Matsuno ). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. PG publication 20100114011) in view of Hooper (U.S. PG publication 20080075639) further in view of Yang (U.S. PG publication 20100283375). In regard to claim 17, Herrmann in view of Hooper teaches the medical insufflation device of claim 15 . Herrmann in view of Hooper fails to disclose wherein the emitter includes an ionizer needle emitter with free ends coated with carbon nanotubes. Yang teaches wherein the emitter (electrode) includes an ionizer needle emitter (paragraph [0020], [0024], and [0026]) with free ends coated with carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0020], [0024], and [0026]) . Therefore, 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 emitter of Herrmann in view of Hooper to include wherein the emitter includes an ionizer needle emitter with free ends coated with carbon nanotubes , as taught by Yang , for the purpose of enhancing the yield of ozone (paragraph [0024] of Yang). Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. PG publication 20100114011) further in view of Hooper (U.S. PG publication 20080075639) further in view of Snowball (U.S. PG publication 20120288405). In regard to claim 19, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 14 , Herrmann fails to disclose wherein the electro-ionic device has an air gap of 2 cm. Hooper teaches wherein the electro-ionic device (item 104 and 200) has an air gap (see figure 1B) . Therefore, 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 Herrmann to substitute the electro-ionic device of Hooper in place of the electro-ionic device of Herrmann, as taught by Hooper , therefore resulting in wherein the electro-ionic device has an air gap because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of generating ozone (see paragraph [0045] of Hooper and paragraph [0041] of Herrmann) . Herrmann in view of Hooper is silent as to wherein the electro-ionic device has an air gap of 2 cm. Snowball teaches an air gap of 2 cm (paragraph [0038]). Therefore, 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 electro-ionic device of Herrmann in view of Hooper to include an air gap of 2 cm , as taught by Snowball , for the purpose of enabling lower voltages to be used (paragraph [0038] of Snowball). Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. PG publication 20100114011) further in view of Schmidt (U.S. PG publication 20160235875). In regard to claim 23, Herrmann discloses the medical insufflation device of claim 22 . Herrmann fails to disclose wherein the ozone decomposition element includes an ozone sensor providing ozone measurements as the vented medical gas is released to atmosphere. Schmidt teaches wherein the ozone decomposition element (filter; paragraph [0030]) includes an ozone sensor providing ozone measurements as the vented medical gas is released to atmosphere (paragraph [0029]-[0030]). Therefore, 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 ozone decomposition element of Herrmann to include an ozone sensor providing ozone measurements as the vented medical gas is released to atmosphere , as taught by Schmidt , for the purpose of providing an indication of the ozone level to the user (paragraph [0030] of Schmidt). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH LALONDE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-6594 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kevin Sirmons can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /ALEXANDRA LALONDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /KEVIN C SIRMONS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783