DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/JP2022/047987, filed on December 26, 2022, and designated the U.S., and claims priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2021-215342 filed on December 28, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 06/28/2024, 09/27/2024, 02/10/2026, 03/18/2026, 03/25/2026, 04/14/2026, 04/21/2026, and 06/23/2026 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 are under examination on the merits.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,667,635 (“the `635 patent”) in view of WO2019194116 A1 (“the `116 publication”) to Tatsushi et al.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Specifically, present claim 1 is drawn to a gas treatment device comprising: an active oxygen supply device; and a gas flow path, wherein the active oxygen supply device comprises a housing having at least one opening part, a plasma actuator arranged inside of the housing, and an ozone decomposition device, the plasma actuator comprises a first electrode, a dielectric, and a second electrode laminated together in this order, the first electrode is an exposed electrode provided on a first surface representing one surface of the dielectric, when a voltage is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode, the plasma actuator generates a dielectric barrier discharge oriented from the first electrode toward the second electrode, and blows out an induced flow containing ozone in a first direction representing one direction along a surface of the dielectric from the first electrode, the ozone decomposition device decomposes the ozone contained in the induced flow to generate active oxygen in the induced flow, and the induced flow results in an induced flow containing the active oxygen, the plasma actuator and the ozone decomposition device are arranged so that the induced flow containing the active oxygen flows to an outside of the housing from the opening part, and the active oxygen supply device is arranged so that the induced flow containing the active oxygen is supplied to the gas flow path from the opening part. Claim 1 is further illustrated by FIG. 1A, and FIGs. 2A-2B of the present specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
547
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
310
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 1 of the `635 patent is drawn to an active oxygen supply apparatus comprising: a casing; a plurality of plasma generating devices provided in an inside of the casing and configured to generate an induced flow containing ozone; an ultraviolet light source provided in the inside of the casing and configured to irradiate the induced flow containing the ozone with ultraviolet light; a shielding plate provided in the inside of the casing and configured to shield the ultraviolet light irradiated from passing to an outside of the casing through an opening portion of the casing; and a shutter configured to be switched between a closed position and an opened position, wherein an active oxygen generated by irradiating the induced flow containing the ozone with the ultraviolet light from the ultraviolet light source is supplied to the outside of the casing through the opening portion of the casing, and wherein the opening portion becomes a closed state when the shutter is in the closed position and the opening portion becomes an exposed state when the shutter is in the opened position. Claim 1 of the `635 patent is further illustrated by FIG. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
548
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and FIG. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
361
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the active oxygen supply device comprises a housing having at least one opening part, a plasma actuator arranged inside of the housing, and an ozone decomposition device, the plasma actuator comprises a first electrode, a dielectric, and a second electrode laminated together in this order, the first electrode is an exposed electrode provided on a first surface representing one surface of the dielectric, when a voltage is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode, the plasma actuator generates a dielectric barrier discharge oriented from the first electrode toward the second electrode, and blows out an induced flow containing ozone in a first direction representing one direction along a surface of the dielectric from the first electrode, the ozone decomposition device decomposes the ozone contained in the induced flow to generate active oxygen in the induced flow, and the induced flow results in an induced flow containing the active oxygen, the plasma actuator and the ozone decomposition device are arranged so that the induced flow containing the active oxygen flows to an outside of the housing from the opening part, and the active oxygen supply device is arranged so that the induced flow containing the active oxygen is supplied to the gas flow path from the opening part.
Claim 1 of the `635 patent is not drawn to a gas treatment device of present claim 1 comprising: an active oxygen supply device and a gas flow path. Instead, claim 1 of the `635 patent is drawn to an active oxygen supply apparatus of the present claim 1.
The difference between present claim 1 and claim 1 of the `635 patent is prior art does not teach a gas treatment device comprising a gas flow path.
However, the difference is further demonstrated or taught by FIG. 1 and FIG. 3 of the same prior art, wherein the gas flow path (105) is illustrated. In addition, a gas treatment device comprising an active oxygen supply device and a gas flow path is also taught by the `116 publication (see FIG. 10). Therefore, claim 1 of the `635 patent in view of the `116 publication would have rendered present claim 1 obvious.
In terms of claims 2, 4, 6, and 8-9, the disclosure of the `635 patent in view of the `116 publication would have rendered the claims obvious.
In terms of claims 11-12, both the `635 patent (see Background art) and the `116 publication (see Title) teach using an active oxygen for treating gas.
Claim Objection
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusions
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 10 are objected to.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights