DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim s1-6 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 without traverse of Species B (claims 7-10) in the reply filed on 3/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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 7-10 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.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim states “wherein air is configured to be input…” It is not clear how air can be configured.
The claim states “the control module is configured to control…to obtain a surge duration in a relation chip between voltage and time…is configured to control another one…to perform …after the surge duration”. It is not clear what a surge duration is. The specification does not clarify this term. It is not clear how the surge is in a relationship between voltage and time.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim states “a temperature sensing module…configured to sense the reactive oxygen species generation module and the reactive nitrogen species generation module…”It is not clear what the temperature sensing modules is configured to sense in the respective reactive modules. Specifically it is not clear if the temperature of the modules is being sensed, the temperature of the air within the modules, the temperature of a specific part of the modules, or something else.
The claim states “temperature change data” is generated. It is not clear if temperature change data is a change in temperature over time such that the rate of temperature change is being compared and when “the temperature change date is increased” it corresponds to an increase in the rate of change or if “the temperature change date is increased” corresponds to the temperature increasing.
The remaining claims are indefinite at they depend from indefinite claims.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al (TW I601693, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 7:
Lu teaches the gas-liquid mixing device, comprising: a reactive oxygen species generation module (module 31) and a reactive nitrogen species generation module (module 36) (see pg. 8, 2nd paragraph), wherein air is configured to be input into the reactive oxygen species generation module and the reactive nitrogen species generation module (Ain) (see fig. 7), and the reactive oxygen species generation module and the reactive nitrogen species generation module are capable of reacting with the air through electrical breakdown effect to respectively generate a plurality of reactive oxygen species gas particles and a plurality of reactive nitrogen species gas particles (see pg. 8, 2nd paragraph); a venturi communicated with the reactive oxygen species generation module and the reactive nitrogen species generation module, wherein, when a liquid passes through the venturi, the venturi is capable of generating a negative pressure to draw in the reactive oxygen species gas particles and the reactive nitrogen species gas particles, so that the reactive oxygen species gas particles and the reactive nitrogen species gas particles are mixed into the liquid to produce a target liquid (mixing mechanism including a venturi) (see pg. 3, 3rd paragraph); and a control module electrically coupled to the reactive oxygen species generation module and the reactive nitrogen species generation module, wherein the control module is configured to control one of the reactive oxygen species generation module and the reactive nitrogen species generation module to perform electrical breakdown effect to obtain a surge duration in a relationship between voltage and time, and the control module is configured to control another one of the reactive oxygen species generation module and the reactive nitrogen species generation module to perform electrical breakdown effect after the surge duration (control ratio of ions, adjust the driving signal) (see pg. 4, 6th-8th paragraphs).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (TW I601693, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lyu et al (US 2022/0095444) and He et al (CN 107531524, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 9:
Lu teaches the gas-liquid mixing device according to claim 7, wherein the reactive oxygen species generation module includes: an exhaust portion (holes h) disposed on another one of the two sides of an accommodation portion, wherein the exhaust portion is communicated with a reactive oxygen species generation channel, and the exhaust portion is configured to output the reactive oxygen species gas particles from the reactive oxygen species generation channel to the venturi through the negative pressure (see pg. 6, last 2 paragraphs, fig. 3.)
Lu does not teach a dielectric layer including a dielectric outer edge and a dielectric inner edge; a low-voltage metal layer, wherein the dielectric outer edge is covered by the low-voltage metal layer; and a high-voltage metal body disposed in the dielectric inner edge, and including: an accommodation portion having a high-voltage metal outer edge and a high-voltage metal inner edge, and a reactive oxygen species generation channel is formed between the high-voltage metal outer edge and the dielectric inner edge, wherein at least one part of the reactive oxygen species generation channel is located in a projection region defined by orthogonally projecting the low-voltage metal layer on the dielectric inner edge, so that the reactive oxygen species generation channel located in the projection region is configured to perform electrical breakdown effect through the low-voltage metal layer, the high-voltage metal body, and the dielectric layer; an inflation portion disposed on one of two sides of the accommodation portion, wherein the inflation portion is communicated with the reactive oxygen species generation channel, and the air is configured to be input into the reactive oxygen species generation channel by the inflation portion, so as to generate the reactive oxygen species gas particles.
Lyu teaches a gas liquid mixing device comprising a reactive oxygen species generating module wherein; the reactive oxygen species generation module includes: a dielectric layer including a dielectric outer edge and a dielectric inner edge (dielectric material layer 4); a low-voltage layer (second electrode 3, used for grounding) (see para. 0015, 0019, fig. 1, annotated below), wherein the dielectric outer edge is covered by the low-voltage metal layer (see fig. 1); and a high-voltage metal body disposed in the dielectric inner edge (first electrode 2), and including: an accommodation portion (space within dielectric layer) (see fig. 1, annotated below) having a high-voltage metal outer edge and a reactive oxygen species generation channel (space between dielectric layer and second electrode) is formed between the high-voltage metal outer edge and the dielectric inner edge (see fig. 1, annotated below) wherein at least one part of the reactive oxygen species generation channel is located in a projection region defined by orthogonally projecting the low-voltage metal layer on the dielectric inner edge, so that the reactive oxygen species generation channel located in the projection region is configured to perform electrical breakdown effect through the low-voltage metal layer, the high-voltage metal body, and the dielectric layer (creates plasma activated water) (see para. 0025); an inflation portion disposed on one of two sides of the accommodation portion, wherein the inflation portion is communicated with the reactive oxygen species generation channel (see fig, 1, annotated below), and the air is configured to be input into the reactive oxygen species generation channel by the inflation portion, so as to generate the reactive oxygen species gas particles; and an exhaust portion disposed on another one of the two sides of the accommodation portion, wherein the exhaust portion is communicated with the reactive oxygen species generation channel (see fig. 1, annotated below).
Lyu does not teach and a high-voltage metal inner edge, that the low-voltage layer is metal or that the high voltage layer is metal.
He teaches a reactive oxygen species generation module comprising a high-voltage metal body (high voltage electrode tube…metal thin film) disposed in the dielectric inner edge, and including: an accommodation portion having a high-voltage metal outer edge and a high-voltage metal inner edge (see pg. 6, 1st paragraph, fig. 2, annotated below).
Lu, Lyu, and He are analogous inventions in the art of reactive oxygen species generation modules. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the dielectric discharge technology of Lu with the dielectric discharge device (module) of Lyu because it is the simple substitution of one known dielectric device for generating reactive oxygen with another dielectric device for generating reactive oxygen, obviously resulting in the generation of reactive oxygen, with an expectation of success. It would have further been obvious to replace the high-voltage body of Lu (as modified by Lyu) with the high-voltage metal body of He because it is the simple substitution of one know electrode for use in a dielectric device with another known electrode for use in a dielectric device obviously resulting in the generation of reactive oxygen, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art the replace the unspecified material of the first electrode (low-voltage layer) of Lu (as modified by Lyu) with metal because metal is a material known to be suitable for use in the dielectric device (see He, pg. 6, first paragraph), and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate materials to use. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
369
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (TW I601693, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of He et al (CN 107531524, English machine translation provided) and Choi (KR 20210153889, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 10:
Lu teaches the gas-liquid mixing device according to claim 7, wherein the reactive nitrogen species generation module includes a dielectric capacitor (dielectric discharge device) including an enclosed space (see fig. 4), a high-voltage material (electrode), and a reactive nitrogen species generation channel (see fig. 4, pg. 8, 2nd paragraph) wherein the air is configured to be input into the reactive nitrogen species generation channel to perform electrical breakdown effect, so as to generate the reactive nitrogen species gas particles, and the venturi is capable of drawing in the reactive nitrogen species gas particles through the negative pressure (see pg. 6, 1st paragraph).
Lu does not teach includes: a dielectric capacitor including an enclosed space having an inert gas; a high-voltage metal component partially disposed in the enclosed space; and a low-voltage metal component disposed on one of two sides of the dielectric capacitor, wherein a reactive nitrogen species generation channel is formed between the low-voltage metal component and the dielectric capacitor, and at least one part of the reactive nitrogen species generation channel is located in a projection region defined by orthogonally projecting the high-voltage metal component on the dielectric capacitor, so that the reactive nitrogen species generation channel located in the projection region is configured to perform electrical breakdown effect through the low-voltage metal component, the high-voltage metal component, and the dielectric capacitor.
He teaches a dielectric capacitor including an enclosed space (dielectric medium 222 around the cylindrical high voltage electrode 223) (see pg. 6, 1st paragraph); a high-voltage metal component partially disposed in the enclosed space (cylindrical high voltage electrode 223) (see pg. 6, 1st paragraph); and a low-voltage component disposed on one of two sides of the dielectric capacitor (ground electrode tube 221) (see fig. 2), wherein a reactive nitrogen species generation channel is formed between the low-voltage metal component and the dielectric capacitor, and at least one part of the reactive nitrogen species generation channel is located in a projection region defined by orthogonally projecting the high-voltage metal component on the dielectric capacitor, so that the reactive nitrogen species generation channel located in the projection region is configured to perform electrical breakdown effect through the low-voltage metal component, the high-voltage metal component, and the dielectric capacitor (see fig. 2).
He does not explicitly teach that the low-voltage component is metal or that the enclosed space is filled with inert gas.
Choi teaches a dielectric capacitor for forming reactive gases wherein the dielectric capacitor includes an enclosed space having an inert gas (see pg. 3, 2nd paragraph).
Lu, He and Choi are analogous inventions in the art of reactive species generation modules. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the dielectric discharge technology of Lu with the dielectric discharge device (module) of He because it is the simple substitution of one known dielectric device for generating reactive species with another dielectric device for generating reactive species, obviously resulting in the generation of a reactive species, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art the replace the unspecified material of the first electrode (low-voltage layer) of Lu (as modified by He) with metal because metal is a material known to be suitable for use in the dielectric device (see He, pg. 6, first paragraph), and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate materials to use. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). It would have been obvious to one killed in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fill the enclosed space of Lu (as modified by He) with an inert gas, as disclosed by Choi because it can be used as a conductive gas (see Choi, pg. 3, 2nd paragraph) and the dielectric capacitor is intended to be conductive (see He pg. 6, 1st paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/15/2026
Prosecution Insights