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 Status
Pending claims 1-8 are addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“liquid feeding unit configured to feed the solution into the discharge tube” in claim 1; paragraph 25 of the specification indicates this unit includes a syringe pump 31 and drive unit 32.
“voltage application unit configured to apply a voltage to the electrode” in claim 1; paragraph 26 of the specification indicates this unit includes a syringe pump 31 and drive unit 32.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “any one of ultra pure water, castor oil, and phosphate buffered saline”. This limitation is indefinite as it is not clear if this limitation requires one of each item listed (“one of A, B, and C” is understood to encompass one A, one B and one C), OR one item of the listed elements (which should be reciting “one of A, B, or C”).
Additionally, the term “ultra pure water” 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 is not clear if the term encompasses only zero contamination or purity within an acceptable unknown range.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US20200178536) in view of Uchida (US 20140296892).
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below)
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko discloses a plasma nano mist generation device (10, fig. 1), comprising:
a discharge tube (11) into which a solution (water) is injected, the discharge tube being configured by a dielectric material (par. 33: “quartz glass or an insulating material such as resin”);
a liquid feeding unit (14, 14a, 14b; see fig. 1) configured to feed the solution into the discharge tube (via 14b and 12);
an electrode (12, 12a) provided in the discharge tube (see figs. 1-2a), the electrode being capable of delivering the solution (par. 38: “The water supply tube 14 b is connected to the upper end of the one electrode 12 so as to be capable of supplying water droplets into the coil of the one electrode 12”);
a voltage application unit (16 and associated components are equivalent to the claimed unit) configured to apply a voltage to the electrode (par. 40);
a ground electrode (13) provided on a side of a distal end of the electrode (at region of 12a; see figs. 1, 2a-2b) and on an outer periphery of the discharge tube (11), the ground electrode being grounded in the device itself (see fig. 1)
Kaneko discloses consideration of changes in incoming water supplied and changes in power (par. 43: “the evaporation quantity of the water can be increased by increasing the supply quantity of the water from the water supply unit 14, and more OH radicals can be generated per unit time”; par. 44: “if power from the power supply unit 16 is increased, the generation quantity of the OH radicals can be increased by increasing the supply quantity of the water”) but is silent regarding a controller configured to control the liquid feeding unit and the voltage application unit and the liquid feeding unit including a syringe pump and drive unit (see Claim Interpretation section above).
However, Uchida discloses a comparable fluid injection device 100 (fig. 1) having a fluid supplying unit 10 that is a syringe pump 10a-10b and drive unit 10c (par. 36) and a voltage application unit 22, 17a (par. 37-38), wherein a controller 16 is configured to control the fluid supply unit 10 and the voltage application unit (via control cables 17a and 17b; par. 38).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Uchida to utilize one of commonly known controlling mechanisms provide a controller configured to control the liquid feeding unit and the voltage application unit. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating improvement in usability and user experienced by the operator by applying proper voltage and fluid as suggested in Uchida in paragraphs 6-7.
(Note 2: all references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the primary reference, unless otherwise stated.)
Regarding claim 2, Kaneko, as modified above, discloses the plasma nano mist generation device according to claim 1, wherein the electrode is a needle electrode or a cylindrical electrode (see Kaneko’s figs. 1 and 2a).
Regarding claim 3, Kaneko, as modified above, discloses the plasma nano mist generation device according to claim 2, wherein the electrode is the needle electrode (see Kaneko’s figs. 1 and 2a, showing needle shaped).
Regarding claim 4, Kaneko, as modified above, discloses the plasma nano mist generation device according to claim 1, further comprising:
an air blower (15, 15a, 15b) that blows air into the discharge tube (par. 39; fig. 1; the current claim language does not distinguish the structure of the air blower, since 15 supply a flow of air as claimed, 15 is an air blower).
Regarding claim 5, Kaneko, as modified above, discloses the plasma nano mist generation device according to claim 1, wherein:
the controller controls the voltage application unit to apply a voltage to the electrode (as modified in view of Uchida to add the controller to Kaneko’s device), the voltage being set based on a correspondence relationship among a type of the solution, an outer diameter of the discharge tube, an outer diameter of the electrode, and a voltage applied to the electrode, the correspondence relationship being predetermined as generation-allowing conditions under which generation of the plasma nano mist is allowed (par. 61 and Table 1 of Kaneko show consideration of voltage setting based on the considerations of relationship in examples 1-5, among the claimed elements; Additionally, since the device taught by Kaneko and Uchida includes the controller and other physical structures of claim 1, the device is therefore capable of having the voltage being set based on the claimed correspondence relationship as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Kaneko, as modified above, discloses the plasma nano mist generation device according to claim 1, wherein:
the controller (as modified in view of Uchida to add the controller) controls the voltage application unit to apply a voltage to the electrode and controls the liquid feeding unit to feed the solution at a feeding speed (Kaneko shows voltage values and feeding speeds via water introducing amount range in uL/min in Table 1 under par. 61), the voltage and the feeding speed being set based on a correspondence relationship among a type of the solution, an outer diameter of the discharge tube, an outer diameter of the electrode, a voltage applied to the electrode, and the feeding speed of the solution, the correspondence relationship being predetermined as generation-allowing conditions under which generation of the plasma nano mist is allowed (par. 49-61 of Kaneko show consideration of the correspondence relationship via experimentation; Additionally, since the device taught by Kaneko and Uchida includes the controller and other physical structures of claim 1, the device is therefore capable of having the voltage being set based on the claimed correspondence relationship as claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Kaneko, as modified above, discloses the plasma nano mist generation device according to claim 6, wherein the feeding speed is faster than 0 μL/min and slower than 500 μL/min (Table 1 shows maximum of 220 μL/min for short type device).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US20200178536) in view of Uchida (US 20140296892), further in view of Canady (US 20230201392).
Regarding claim 4, Kaneko, as modified above, discloses the plasma nano mist generation device according to claim 1. In the alternative where applicant insist gas tank 15 is not a blower.
Canady discloses a comparable system with cold atmospheric plasma to inactivate virus and sterilize the air flow (Abstract) wherein the system include an in-line fan 122 (par. 26) in section 120 (fig. 1) for move air and mixing plasma exiting the tube.
The substitution of one known element (gas tank) as taught by Kaneko with another (fan or air blower) as taught by Canady would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, moving air and/or generated composition toward the intended target.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US20200178536) in view of Uchida (US 20140296892), further in view of Fridman (US 20150038584).
Regarding claim 8, Kaneko, as modified above, discloses the plasma nano mist generation device according to claim 1, wherein:11 can be set to a desired length and an optional tube inner/outer diameter. For example, the outer diameter can be selected from about 5 to 10 mm”, 8-10 mm values are within the claimed range),
the outer diameter of the electrode is 0.25 mm or more and 5 mm or less (par. 36: “the one electrode 12 is made of a tungsten wire having a diameter of 0.01 to 0.5 mm, and is formed in a coil shape having a diameter of 0.5 to 5 mm”, wire diameter between 0.25-0.5mm or coil diameter of 0.5 to 5mm meet the claimed range), and
the voltage is 7 kV or more and 17.5 kV or less (Table 1: “14”).
Kaneko is silent regarding the solution is any one of ultra pure water, castor oil, and phosphate buffered saline.
Fridman discloses a disinfection composition produced by non-thermal plasma where organic material is dissolved in a suitable liquid, including saline, deionized water, phosphate buffered saline, or a combination thereof (par. 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Fridman to utilize any known solution such as any one of water or phosphate buffered saline. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating disinfection using plasma (see Fridman, paragraph 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights