DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 18-19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/16/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “peroxinitrite” is not a word and Applicant is likely intending the term to read “peroxynitrite”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “peroxinitrites” is not a word and Applicant is likely intending the term to read “peroxynitrites”.
Examiner notes that claim 16’s recitation of “the air flow (4)” is in reference to the preliminary amendment that deleted the reference numerals from all of the claims. It is likely that the Applicant missed one of the reference numerals in claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 6 and 17 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outer diameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is likely the Applicant is intending the limitation to read “the” or “an” “outer diameter of the discharge tube” (see instant Specification p.10, 3rd paragraph).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the disinfection chamber” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueker (US 20130283629 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Dehne (DE 102005056726 B4, cited in prior office action), further in view of Liu et al. (CN 205693967 U), and evidenced by Prolo et al. (cited in PTO-892 form) with respect to claim 12.
Regarding claim 1, Bueker teaches an apparatus for disinfecting areas of the body (1, Fig. 1) and sterilizing air ([0007]), comprising: a fan for generating an air flow (5, Fig. 1) and a plasma generator (6, Fig. 1), wherein the plasma generator is present in the air flow (arrows denoting circulating airflow, Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the plasma generator comprises at least one plasma rod which comprises a dielectric tube with an electrically conductive core inside the dielectric tube, the dielectric tube exhibits on an outer side a wire coiled into windings, and wherein the electrically conductive core forms with the wire coiled around the outer side a pair of electrodes which generates a plasma when a voltage is applied.
Dehne teaches a plasma generator for the sterilization of air and elimination of odor (Fig. 1, and p.2, 2nd paragraph of English translation), wherein the plasma generator comprises at least one plasma rod which comprises a dielectric tube (dielectric 2, Fig. 1), with an electrically conductive core inside the dielectric tube (inner electrode 4 and single electrode 5, Fig. 1), the dielectric tube exhibits on an outer side a wire (outer electrode 1 is a fine mesh, Fig. 1 and p.3, last paragraph of English translation), and wherein the electrically conductive core (4 and 5, Fig. 1) forms with the wire coiled around the outer side a pair of electrodes (grounded outer electrode mesh 1, Fig. 1) which generates a plasma when a voltage is applied (p.2, last paragraph of English translation).
Bueker and Dehne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air sterilization utilizing plasma generation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma generator of Bueker with the non-thermal plasma generator structure as taught by Dehne, because in doing so would yield the predictable result of plasma generation for air sterilization (Dehne, p.2, 2nd paragraph of English translation).
Modified Bueker fails to teach wherein the wire is coiled into windings.
Liu teaches a non-thermal plasma generator (Fig. 4-5) for air disinfection (p.2, 1st paragraph), having a stainless steel tube electrode (a2, Fig. 4) wrapped by an insulating dielectric (a3, Fig. 4) that is coiled by a flexible wire electrode into windings (a1, Fig. 4) to generate said non-thermal plasma.
The Bueker/Dehne combination and Liu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of non-thermal plasma generation to disinfect air.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the outer electrode mesh of modified Bueker with an electrode wire coiled into windings as taught by Liu, because in doing so would yield the predictable result of non-thermal plasma generation.
Regarding claim 2, the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination teaches wherein the plasma generator comprises a plasma rod (Fig. 1), but fails to teach an array of a plurality of plasma rods.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the single plasma rod of the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination to be a plurality of plasma rods as the overall plasma generator (i.e., an array of plasma rods), yielding the predictable result of increased plasma generation, because “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 3, the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination teaches wherein the dielectric tube exhibits a wall thickness of between 0.5 mm and 3 mm (Dehne, “The wall thickness is preferably 0.8-1.2 mm”, p.3, 5th paragraph of English translation).
Regarding claim 4, the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination teaches wherein the dielectric tube exhibits a length of 0.75-2 times the outer diameter of the tube (Dehne, “a diameter of 6.0-8.0 mm and a length of 6.0-12 mm”, p.3, 5th paragraph of English translation), but is silent to the proportion of 4 to 30 times the outer diameter of the tube.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length-to-outer-diameter ratio of the dielectric tube to be 4 to 30 times in the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination by adjusting the length or outer diameter of the dielectric tube, because “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”, thus is “not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select the dielectric tube parameters of the outer diameter to be 8 mm and the length of the tube being 12 mm of the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination from the respective disclosed ranges (Dehne, p.3, 5th paragraph of English translation), because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
With this modification, the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination teaches wherein the wire (Dehne, outer electrode 1, Fig. 1) is coiled into windings in opposite directions (Liu, windings of wire a1, Fig. 4) over at least twice the length of the tube (Dehne, length of tube is 12 mm, and knowing the OD of the tube as 8 mm, the four individual coil cross-sections as shown in the arrows in the drawing below means that each individual wire in the mesh winds around the tube at least four times the circumference, yielding the length of a single wire in the mesh to be at least 25.1 mm > 24 mm)
PNG
media_image1.png
307
219
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a plasma distributed over the length of the tube is generated as a function of the applied voltage (Dehne, p.3, 7th paragraph of English translation).
Regarding claim 6, the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination teaches the windings of wire (Liu, wire a1, Fig. 4), but fail to mention wherein the windings of the wire have a distance from one another of between 1 and 10 times the outer diameter of the dielectric tube.
Liu teaches a non-thermal plasma generator (Fig. 4-5) for air disinfection (p.2, 1st paragraph), having a stainless steel tube electrode (a2, Fig. 4) wrapped by an insulating dielectric (a3, Fig. 4) that is coiled by a flexible wire electrode (a1, Fig. 4), mentioning that the generated plasma distribution can be changed by changing either the size of thread pitch (i.e. density, which is directly tied into the distance between the flexible electrode wires a1, Fig. 1) and thus the contact area of the electrode (p.3, 8th paragraph of English translation).
The Bueker/Dehne combination and Liu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of non-thermal plasma generation to disinfect air.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed range of the windings of the wire having a distance from one another (i.e., thread pitch) of between 1 and 10 times the outer diameter of the dielectric tube with a reasonable expectation of success via routine optimization, because Liu teaches that changing either the size of thread pitch (i.e. density, which is directly tied into the distance between the flexible electrode wires) and thus the contact area of the electrode can change the generated plasma distribution on the dielectric material (Liu, p.3, 8th paragraph of English translation).
Regarding claim 8, the Bueker/Dehne combination teaches wherein the electrically conductive core (Dehne, inner electrode 4 and wound electrode 5) comprises a metal wire (Dehne, inner electrode fibers are made of stainless steel, p.3, 6th paragraph of English translation).
Regarding claim 9, the Bueker/Dehne combination teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a voltage source (Dehne, high-voltage source, abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination teaches wherein the applied voltage is an alternating voltage (Dehne, “By applying a high-frequency alternating voltage preferably between 1400 and 1700 V”, p.3, 7th paragraph of English translation).
Regarding claim 11, the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination teaches wherein the plasma comprises a reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (oxygen and nitrogen in atmospheric air will form reactive oxygen and nitrogen species as an intrinsic result from the generated non-thermal plasma, “generating radicals and oxidants in oxygen-containing gases by means of non-thermal plasma-chemical conversion”, p.2, last paragraph of English translation). Because the structure of the nonthermal plasma generator of Dehne is identical to the structure in instant claim 1, the generation of singlet oxygen, hyperoxide ions, and nitric oxide as examples of ROS and RNS is a direct result from the plasma generation (see instant Specification, p.4, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination teaches the limitation of “wherein the reactive oxygen species comprises singlet oxygen 1O2 and hyperoxide anions and/or the reactive nitrogen species comprises nitrogen monoxide, wherein the nitrogen monoxide reacts with hyperoxide anions to form peroxynitrites ONOO- and ONOOH”, because evidentiary reference Prolo mentions that “peroxynitrite is both an oxidant and a nucleophile, formed at the intersection of the reactive oxygen and nitrogen species pathways via the following diffusion controlled reaction of the free radicals superoxide and nitric oxide (synonymous with nitrogen monoxide), respectively” (p.1 col. 2, 1st paragraph). Thus, the generation of peroxynitrites ONOO- and ONOOH are direct results of the reactive nitrogen and oxygen species formed by the nonthermal plasma generation as shown in claim 11 rejection above.
Regarding claim 13, modified Bueker teaches wherein the air flow circulates in a circulation system (arrows denoting airflow circulation, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Bueker teaches wherein the fan (fan 5, Fig. 1) draws in air from an environment (hollow space 4, Fig. 1) and is released into the environment (via nozzles 9, Fig. 1) after flowing through the plasma generator (6, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Bueker teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a disinfection chamber (housing port 3, Fig. 1), into which components of the plasma are transported with the air flow (arrows, Fig. 1), such that areas of the body are disinfected from germs, bacteria and/or viruses within the disinfection chamber ([0007]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Bueker teaches wherein there is a spatial separation between the disinfection chamber and the plasma generator (there is space between housing port 3 and plasma generator 6, Fig. 1), wherein the apparatus is preferably designed as a two-chamber system (portion of conduits including supply duct 8, plasma generator 6, and fan 5, Fig. 1), wherein a separation is provided between a disinfection chamber accessible to human hands (hollow space 4, Fig. 1) and a reaction chamber comprising the plasma generator (portion of conduits including supply duct 8, plasma generator 6, and fan 5, Fig. 1), and wherein the air flow flows through the reaction chamber before entering the disinfection chamber (arrows denoting airflow, Fig. 1).
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueker (US 20130283629 A1), further in view of Dehne (DE 102005056726 B4), further in view of Liu et al. (CN 205693967 U), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hammerstrom et al. (US 20020175068 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination is silent to wherein the wire (Dehne, outer electrode 1, Fig. 1) exhibits a diameter of between 0.1 mm and 1 mm.
Hammerstrom teaches a non-thermal plasma generator (Fig. 2) for decontamination of fluids (abstract) having an inner electrode (12a, Fig. 2), wrapped by a dielectric (14a, Fig. 2), coiled by an outer electrode wire (14a, Fig. 2) having a diameter of 1/32 inches (equal to approximately 0.8 mm, [0049]).
The Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination and Hammerstrom are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of non-thermal plasma generation of the decontamination of fluids.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the wires in the outer electrode mesh of the Bueker/Dehne/Liu combination to be selected diameter of 1/32 inches as taught by Hammerstrom, because in doing so would yield the predictable result of non-thermal plasma generation, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueker (US 20130283629 A1), further in view of Dehne (DE 102005056726 B4), further in view of Liu et al. (CN 205693967 U), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ishii et al. (US 20110277342 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Bueker teaches the fan (5, Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the fan is equipped with one or more heating elements.
Ishii teaches a hand dryer (1, Fig. 1) utilizing a fan (2, Fig. 1) and a plasma generator (ion generator 22, Fig. 1), where adjacently mounted to the fan is a heating element (heater 21, Fig. 1) in order to heat the high-pressure air from the fan and thus facilitate the blowing away of water drops from the hands ([0002]).
Modified Bueker and Ishii are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hand dryers using plasma generators to disinfect air before being blown out to the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of modified Bueker by incorporating a heater directly mounted adjacent to the fan as taught by Ishii because in doing so would heat the high-pressure air from the fan and thus facilitate the blowing away of water drops from the hands (Ishii, [0002]).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM 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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights