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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. In this case, the present title filed on 12/07/2023, is too long. See MPEP 606.01.
The following tittle is suggested: --Device and method for generating an atmospheric plasma jet--.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should avoid using phases which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure concerns”, “The disclosure defined by this invention”, “This disclosure describes”, “is disclosed”, “are disclosed”, “the invention relates to” etc. Correction is required. See MPEP 608.01 (b).
In this case, the present abstract filed on 12/07/2023, contains the phrase “The invention relates to” that should avoid.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1:
Each bullet “-“ should be removed;
The phrase: “…a surface of a workpiece with a plasma nozzle…” as cited in lines 2-3, should be changed to --… a surface of a workpiece , wherein the apparatus comprising: a plasma nozzle …--
“an atmospheric plasma jet” as cited in lines 3-4, should be changed to: --the atmospheric plasma jet--.
The term “and/or” as cited in line 18, should be changed to --or--.
In claim 13: The phase “a surface of a workpiece with an apparatus” should be changed to --the surface of the workpiece with the apparatus --
In claim 14:
The term “and/or” as cited in line 18, should be changed to --or--.
The limitation “an atmospheric plasma jet”, should be changed to --the atmospheric plasma jet --
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1:
The phrase “the nozzle opening has a cross-section with a shape differing from a circular shape” as cited in lines 15-16, is indefinite, because it is what the nozzle opening shape is? In light of present disclosure, the nozzle opening has a rectangular, elliptical, drop-shaped or trapezoidal…
The limitation “a plasma jet” as cited in line 10, is indefinite because it is unclear “a plasma jet” is the same “an atmospheric plasma jet” in line 2 or not? If it is the same “a plasma jet” should be changed to --the atmospheric plasma jet--
In claims 8 and 10, each term “preferably”, is a relative term that causes the indefinite issue. Such that, the term “preferably” is suggested to change to “or”.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 9474141 B1) in view of Ishimatsu et al. (US 6568791 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses
An apparatus (arc atmospheric pressure plasma device, fig.2) for generating an atmospheric plasma jet (inherently) for treating a surface (treated surface 240, fig.3) of a workpiece (workpiece of surface 240) with
a plasma nozzle (plasma nozzle 200, fig.2) which is configured to generate an atmospheric plasma jet (inherently), wherein
the plasma nozzle (plasma nozzle 200) comprises at least two electrodes (first electrode 206, second electrode 202, fig.3),
wherein the plasma nozzle (plasma nozzle 200) is configured to generate the atmospheric plasma jet by means of an arc-like discharge in a working gas [Col.3, lines 28-30 cited: “…working gas can be introduced into the chamber 208 from the opening 214 of the second electrode 202…”], the arc-like discharge being generated by applying a high-frequency high voltage between the electrodes (first electrode 206, second electrode 202),
wherein the plasma nozzle (plasma nozzle 200) has a nozzle arrangement (nozzle 204, fig.2) with a nozzle opening (outlets 224, 228, fig.2 and/or outlets 250, 252, fig.4B) for discharging a plasma jet to be generated in the plasma nozzle (plasma nozzle 200), and wherein the nozzle arrangement (nozzle 204) is rotatable about an axis of rotation [Col.3, lines 37-40 cited: “…second electrode 202 is a rotation electrode which rotates by using the central axis 210 of the chamber 208 as a rotation axis. For example, the second electrode 202 may be fixed to a rotation bearing (not shown) …”], wherein the nozzle opening (outlets 224, 228) has a cross-section with a shape differing from a circular shape (outlets 250, 252, fig.4B has a rectangular shape),
However, Hong does not disclose the nozzle opening has a cross-section which tapers in a radial direction with respect to the axis of rotation or which has a larger extension in the radial direction with respect to the axis of rotation that transversely thereto.
Kamp discloses an apparatus (liquid flow path 107, figs.1A, B, C) comprising a nozzle opening (port 105, figs.1A, B, C) has a cross-section which tapers [Col.15, lines 20-22 cited: “…shape of the opening of the tapered discharge port 105 on the liquid flow path 107 side may be circular, elliptical, or the like…”].
PNG
media_image1.png
612
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a nozzle opening of Hong, has a cross-section which tapers, as taught by Kamp, in order to discharge atmospheric plasma jet effectively that suitable for the user application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 2, Hong discloses
the plasma nozzle (plasma nozzle 200, fig.2) has a housing (housing of plasma nozzle 200) with a housing axis (axis of housing of plasma nozzle 200) and the axis of rotation runs parallel to the housing axis or coincides with it (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 4, Hong discloses
the nozzle opening (outlets 224, 228, fig.2) is arranged eccentrically to the axis of rotation (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 5, Hong discloses
the nozzle opening (outlets 224, 228, fig.2) is arranged completely outside the axis of rotation (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 6, Hong discloses
the cross-section of the nozzle opening (outlets 250, 252, fig.4B) is rectangular (see fig.4B) or elliptical.
Regarding claim 7, Hong does not disclose
the cross-section of the nozzle opening is drop-shaped or trapezoidal.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a nozzle opening of Hong, with the cross-section of the nozzle opening is drop-shaped or trapezoidal, in order to discharge atmospheric plasma jet effectively that suitable for the user application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 8, Hong does not disclose
the cross-section of the nozzle opening has a cross-sectional area of at most 50 mm.sup.2, preferably at most 30 mm.sup.2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-section of the nozzle opening of Hong, has a cross-sectional area of at most 50 mm.sup.2, preferably at most 30 mm.sup.2, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Hong does not disclose
the direction of the nozzle opening runs at an angle in the range of 0 and 45° to the axis of rotation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the direction of the nozzle opening of Hong, runs at an angle in the range of 0 and 45° to the axis of rotation, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, Hong does not disclose
the direction of the nozzle opening runs at an angle of at least 1°, preferably at least 5°, to the axis of rotation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the direction of the nozzle opening of Hong, runs at an angle of at least 1°, preferably at least 5°, to the axis of rotation, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)..
Regarding claim 11, Hong discloses
the apparatus (arc atmospheric pressure plasma device, fig.2) has a rotary drive (rotation bearing, Col.3, lines 37-40) which is configured to rotate the nozzle arrangement (nozzle 204, fig.2) about the axis of rotation [Col.3, lines 37-40 cited: “…second electrode 202 is a rotation electrode which rotates by using the central axis 210 of the chamber 208 as a rotation axis. For example, the second electrode 202 may be fixed to a rotation bearing (not shown) …”].
Regarding claim 13, Hong discloses
A method for treating the surface (treated surface 240, fig.3) of the workpiece (workpiece of surface 240) with the apparatus (arc atmospheric pressure plasma device, fig.2), in which the nozzle arrangement (nozzle 204, fig.2) is rotated about the axis of rotation [Col.3, lines 37-40 cited: “…second electrode 202 is a rotation electrode which rotates by using the central axis 210 of the chamber 208 as a rotation axis. For example, the second electrode 202 may be fixed to a rotation bearing (not shown) …”], in which an atmospheric plasma jet is generated (inhenrently) with the plasma nozzle (plasma nozzle 200, fig.2) so that it emerges from the nozzle opening (outlets 224, 228, fig.2 and/or outlets 250, 252, fig.4B), and in which the plasma jet is directed onto the surface (treated surface 240) to be treated.
Regarding claim 14, Hong discloses
the plasma nozzle (plasma nozzle 200, fig.2) is moved over the surface (treated surface 240, fig.3) to be treated and/or the surface (treated surface 240) to be treated is moved along the plasma nozzle (plasma nozzle 200, fig.2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asad et al. (US 20190394867 A1) is considered as a relevant prior art in field of a nozzle assembly device, as shown in fig.1, with a nozzle, an opening has tapers in a cross-section…. but does not explicitly disclose the nozzle opening has a cross-section with a shape differing from a circular shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
06/14/2026
Prosecution Insights