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 .
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 21 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.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear if the second larger diameter flow path is the same as the chamber of claim 1, r if it is a different element altogether. The drawings appear to show then as the same element, but the claims appear to have them as different elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray et al. (2007/0095942) in view of De Rosa et al. (2012/0160874)
Regarding claim 1, Ray et al. shows an atomizer (10) comprising: a first pump (18) that ejects gas through an outlet (32); a first flow path (15) having a first end (bottom) and a second end (32), the first end of the first flow path being connected to the outlet of the first pump (fig 1); a connection point (16) between the first and second ends of the first flow path, wherein the connection point is in fluid communication with the first flow path (fig 1); a reservoir (25) for storing liquid; and a second flow path (22b) having a first end (upstream end) and a second end outlet of 22b), the first end of the second flow path being connected to the reservoir (fig 2), the second end of the second flow path being connected to the connection point (fig 3c), wherein the second flow path intersects the first flow path upstream of the second end of the first flow path (fig 3c), and wherein an inclined surface (the outer surface of 22 near the outlet of 22 that obstructs the pathway 16c,d, see marked up figure below) between the second end of the second flow path and the first end of the first flow path at least partially obstructs the first flow path (fig 3C), and wherein the connection point is a chamber (space 32 is a chamber), and a boundary of the chamber defines the inclined surface (fig 3b).
But fails to disclose that the pump is a piezoelectric pump
However, De Rosa et al teaches a spray device that includes a piezoelectric pump (24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a piezoelectric pump as in De Rosa et al. for the pump of Ray et al, in order to be able to make the atomizer with a miniature pump as taught by De Rosa et al ([0054] and abstract)
PNG
media_image1.png
566
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, further comprising a case (1) comprising at least the first piezoelectric pump, the first flow path, the second flow path, and the reservoir (fig 1).
Regarding claim 21, wherein the first flow path comprises a first larger diameter flow path (inlet to 16d) which leads to a smaller diameter flow path (outlet of 16d), the smaller diameter flow path leading to a second larger diameter flow path (32), the second larger diameter flow path having a diameter greater than a diameter of the first larger diameter flow path (fig 3c), the diameter of the first larger diameter flow path being larger than a diameter of the smaller diameter flow path (fig 3c).
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 13, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutay et al. (2005/0045745) in view of De Rosa et al. (2012/0160874), further in view of Ray et al. (2007/0095942)
Regarding claim 1 Kutay et al. shows An atomizer (fig 1) comprising: a first pump (3) that ejects gas through an outlet (19); a first flow path (8) having a first end and a second end, the first end of the first flow path being connected to the outlet of the first pump (fig 1); a connection point (12) between the first and second ends of the first flow path, wherein the connection point is in fluid communication with the first flow path (fig 1); a reservoir (1) for storing liquid; and a second flow path (15) having a first end and a second end, the first end of the second flow path being connected to the reservoir (fig 1), the second end of the second flow path being connected to the connection point (fig 1), wherein the second flow path intersects the first flow path upstream of the second end of the first flow path (fig 1).
But fails to disclose that the pump is a piezoelectric pump
However, De Rosa et al teaches a spray device that includes a piezoelectric pump (24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a piezoelectric pump as in De Rosa et al. for the pump of Kutay et al, in order to be able to make the atomizer with a miniature pump as taught by De Rosa et al ([0054] and abstract)
The above combination fails to disclose wherein an inclined surface between the second end of the second flow path and the first end of the first flow path at least partially obstructs the first flow path, and wherein the connection point is a chamber, and a boundary of the chamber defines the inclined surface.
Ray et al. shows a similar device as described above including wherein an inclined surface (the outer surface of 22 near the outlet of 22 that obstructs the pathway 16c,d, see marked up figure above) between the second end of the second flow path and the first end of the first flow path at least partially obstructs the first flow path (fig 3C) and wherein the connection point is a chamber (space 32 is a chamber), and a boundary of the chamber defines the inclined surface (fig 3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the outlet tip 16 and 22, figure 3c of Ray et al. in place of the outlet tip of the above combination, in order to have some of the fluid be sucked out by venturi effect as taught by Ray et al. [0033], this will aid in the spraying of the fluid.
Regarding claims 8, 16, 17 and 19, wherein the first flow path extends in a straight line from the first end to the second end (see marked up figure below).
Regarding claim 9, further comprising a case (20) comprising at least the first piezoelectric pump, the first flow path, the second flow path, and the reservoir (fig 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
728
894
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, wherein the reservoir is a tank housed in the case (fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kutay et al. as modified above fails to disclose a second piezoelectric pump that ejects gas through an outlet; and a third flow path having a first end and a second end, the first end of the third flow path being connected to the outlet of the second piezoelectric pump, the second end of the third flow path being connected to the reservoir.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to add a second piezoelectric pump to the device of Kutay et al. as modified above and have it be connected to the flow path 8, in order to allow the device to have backup pump, or operate at double the pressure.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to add a second piezoelectric pump to the device of Kutay et al. as modified above and have it be connected to the flow path 8, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
It has been noted that once the second pump has been added, path 11 becomes the third flow path having a first end and a second end, the first end of the third flow path being connected to the outlet of the second piezoelectric pump, the second end of the third flow path being connected to the reservoir. This is shown in fig 1 of Kutay et al.
Regarding claim 5, further comprising a bypass flow path through which a spot on the first flow path between the first end of the first flow path and the connection point is connected to the third flow path (the flow path between the two pumps is the bypass flowline).
Regarding claims 7, 12, Kutay et al. as modified above fails to show that the third flow path comprises a backflow prevention mechanism that eliminates or reduces occurrence of backflow of liquid.
The examiner notes that backflow prevention mechanism are well known in the art and are commonly used to prevent backflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was field to add a backflow prevention mechanism to the third flow path in order to prevent the material form the reservoir form flowing back into the third flow path.
Regarding claim 21, wherein the first flow path comprises a first larger diameter flow path (inlet to 16d, Ray) which leads to a smaller diameter flow path (outlet of 16d, Ray), the smaller diameter flow path leading to a second larger diameter flow path (32), the second larger diameter flow path having a diameter greater than a diameter of the first larger diameter flow path (fig 3c), the diameter of the first larger diameter flow path being larger than a diameter of the smaller diameter flow path (fig 3c).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 13 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6, 13 and 18 is allowable due to the structure of the third flow path resistive member in claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the above marked up figure clearly shows the inclined surface and how it obstructs the flow of the pathway.
The above rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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 on (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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 2/11/2026