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 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 15-17, 20-22 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.
The term “high” and “large scale” in the preamble of claims 1 and 21 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” and “large scale” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what limitation is being recited to consider the system as a high efficiency system nor would it be clear as to what limitation a large scale treatment would require. Therefore, the precise metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined. For examination purposes a system meeting the limitations of the rest of claim 1 and 21 will be deemed to be a high efficiency plasma activation system for large scale treatment of liquid.
Claim 20 recites the system is configured to operate free of compressed gas. It is unclear what structural limitation such a configuration would require. The specification does not provide any particular direction or teaching of what structure the system would have to be configured as claimed versus a system that is configured to operate with compressed gas. For these reasons the precise metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 22 recites the system if configured for treatment of liquid for nitrogen fixation. It is unclear what structural limitation is required to configure a system for treatment of liquid for nitrogen. Specifically, treatment of liquid and nitrogen fixation are materials a system would work on within the system but does not provide any particular structural limitation to the system itself. For these reasons the precise metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, 15-17, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. US 2017/0128604.
Claim 1, Shimizu teaches a plasma activation system comprising: a liquid tank (14) having an inlet and an outlet, a pump (par 51) having an inlet and an outlet, the inlet of the pump fluidly connected to the outlet of the liquid tank, a self-suction mechanism (20) having a liquid inlet (44a) fluidly connected to the outlet of the pump, an air inlet tube (50), and an outlet (44b) fluidly connected to the inlet of the liquid tank, the liquid inlet, the air inlet tube and the outlet joined at a throat (42), wherein the air inlet tube has a length and a plasma generator (16) having a plasma discharge nozzle positioned adjacent to the air inlet tube of the self-suction mechanism and configured to discharge gas phase plasma into the air inlet tube of the self-suction mechanism and introduce micro-bubbles into a flow of liquid to be treated (fig. 1, 3, par 48, 51). Shimizu does not teach the specific length of the air inlet tube. The recitation of the length of the air inlet tube is a recitation of a relative dimension of the system. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984). The specification does not teach or suggest any particular performance based on the recited dimensions.
Claims 2-5, 11 and 17, Shimizu further teaches the inlet of the liquid tank is connected to a supply of liquid to be treated (fig. 1); the system is a closed loop system (fig. 1); the pump will inherently control a liquid flow rate of the system and the flow rate of the system is not a structural limitation but a process limitation (fig. 1); the self-suction mechanism is a venturi tube (fig. 1, par 54); a plurality of liquid transmitting pipes that fluidly connect each of the liquid tank, the pump and the self-suction mechanism (fig. 1); and the plasma generator comprises an electrode (56a) that is spatially separated from any liquid of the system (fig. 3).
Claim 6 recites how the venturi tube is formed, namely by 3D printing, which renders the claim a product by process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USDQ 964 (1985). The process of making the venturi tube of Shimizu is deemed a functional equivalent to the process of 3D printing.
Claims 7 and 9 recite various dimensions of the air inlet and the outlet of the self-suction mechanism. The prior art to Shimizu does not teach the particular dimensions of the various portions of the self-suction mechanism. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984). The specification does not teach or suggest any particular performance based on the recited dimensions.
Claim 10, Shimizu teaches the plasma discharge nozzle will inherently work at some unspecified voltage and frequency but does not teach a range of voltage and frequency. Such devices are very common in the art and if the plasma discharge nozzle of Shimizu is not inherently capable of operating over a range of voltages and frequencies such a modification would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The official notice is regarded as admitted prior art as applicant has not rebutted the previous official notice.
Claim 12, Shimizu teaches the system of claim 11 but does not teach light resistant coating applied to the liquid transmitting pipes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a light resistant coating to the pipes, specifically plastic pipes, as it is well known that sunlight degrades plastic over time and would cause premature failure of the system. The official notice is regarded as admitted prior art as applicant has not rebutted the previous official notice.
Claim 15, Shimizu further teaches a power source (54) to provide electrical power to the plasma generator (fig. 3) but does not teach a power source for the pump. Shimizu teaches the pump is a non-special common drawing pump (par 51). Electrically driven pumps are very common in the art and providing a single power source for the plasma generator and the pump would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize and simplify the number of components in the system. The official notice is regarded as admitted prior art as applicant has not rebutted the previous official notice.
Claim 16, the use of a solar power station would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as solar power is renewable and reduces emission or greenhouse gases.
Claim 20, Shimizu does not teach the use of compressed gas and therefore the system is considered to be configured to operate free of compressed gas.
Claim 21, Shimizu teaches the system is configured to treat liquid. The recitation of nitrogen fixation is a recitation of intended use. However, Shimizu further teaches the system employs nitrogen gas (par 69) and therefore is considered to be configured for nitrogen fixation.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis et al. US 2017/0128906 in view of Shimizu et al. US 2017/0128604.
Claim 21, Louis teaches a plasma activation system consisting of: a liquid tank (856) having an inlet and an outlet, a pump (840) having an inlet and an outlet, the inlet of the pump fluidly connected to the outlet of the liquid tank, a single self-suction mechanism (830) having a liquid inlet fluidly connected to the outlet of the pump, an air inlet (820), and an outlet (832) fluidly connected to the inlet of the liquid tank, the liquid inlet, the air inlet and the outlet joined at a throat (at 834), and a plasma generator (804) having a plasma discharge nozzle positioned adjacent to the air inlet of the self-suction mechanism and configured to discharge gas phase plasma into the air inlet of the self-suction mechanism and introduce bubbles into a flow of liquid to be treated (fig. 10, par 47-51). Louis does not specifically teach micro bubbles.
Shimizu teaches the recited system, as detailed above, where micro bubbles are produced (fig. 1, 3, par 48, 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Louis to produce micro bubbles because micro bubbles increase the contact area between the plasma active species and the liquid, the plasma active species or the reaction product derived therefrom can be increased and the plasma active species can be efficiently dissolved in the liquid (par 66-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the terms high efficiency and large scale are terms readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art and that the specification explains what is meant by high efficiency and large scale. Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that these terms are or would be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, the portions of the specification referenced by applicant do not provide any definition or direction as to the meaning of those terms, but simply uses those terms. Therefore, the previous rejection has been maintained.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include limitations from previous claim 8 and argues that Shimizu does not teach an air inlet tube. The venturi of Shimizu clearly has an air inlet tube (46) which takes in gas at one end (50), the casing (46) has a cylindrical shape and gas flows out the other end of the tube at (52) (fig. 3, par 54). Thus, Shimizu teaches a gas inlet tube as recited.
Applicant argues that the dimensions of the device are important to its function and do result in different performance from the prior art of record and that the present invention delicately balances the dimensions. However, the only mention in the specification as originally filed of the dimensions is in paragraph 9. I this portion of the specification the dimensions are simply stated but no teaching or direction is provided as to the benefit or purpose of any particular dimension stated in the paragraph. The specification fails to provide any nexus between the recited dimensions of the device and any particular benefit or advantage. Therefore, the recited dimensions do not provide a patentable distinction for the reasons stated in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights