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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 8th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jido (US 4508265 A) in view of Yanagida et al. (US 5928731 A) and Benedek et al. (US 3735925 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jido discloses a spray ionization device (entire system, Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a first tube (2, Figs. 1-4) including a first channel (3, Figs. 1-4) through which a first liquid can flow (gasoline or kerosene is supplied to first flow path 3, Col. 2, Ln. 49-55), the first tube (2, Figs. 1-4) including a first outlet (annotated in Fig. 2) for ejecting the first liquid at one end (downstream end of first flow path 3, shown in Figs. 1-4, Col. 2, Ln. 62-65);
a second tube (1, Figs. 1-4) including a second channel (4, Figs. 1-4) through which a second liquid (alcohol is applied to the second flow path 4, Col. 3, Ln. 25-27), which is different from the first liquid (alcohol in path 4 is different from gasoline or kerosene in path 3, Col. 3, Ln. 25-27), can flow, the second tube (1, Figs. 1-4) including a second outlet (annotated in Fig. 2) for ejecting the second liquid at the one end (downstream end of second flow path 4, shown in Figs. 1-4, Col. 3, Ln. 27-28);
an outer tube (external tube, shown in Figs. 1-4) including the first tube (2, shown in Figs. 1-4) and the second tube (1, shown in Figs. 1-4), the outer tube (external tube, shown in Figs. 1-4) surrounding an outer circumferential surface of at least one of the first tube (2, Figs. 1-4) and the second tube (1, Figs. 1-4) with a gap (space between external tube and outer tube 1, shown in Figs. 1-4), the outer tube (external tube, shown in Figs. 1-4) including a gas channel (11, Figs. 1-3) through which a gas can flow (a large volume, swirled current of air is supplied, Col. 4, Ln. 55-68), the outer tube (external tube, shown in Figs. 1-4) including an ejection port (downstream end of flow path 11, shown in Figs. 1-3), the gas, the first liquid, and the second liquid being ejected from only the ejection port (gas from flow path 11, liquid from flow path 3, and liquid from flow path 4 are only ejected from the downstream end of flow path 11, shown in Figs. 1-3); and
a plurality of electrodes (6, 6a, 9, Figs. 1-4) arranged in the first channel (3, shown in Figs. 1-4), and in a mixing region (interpreting as at least one electrode each arranged in the first channel, in the second channel, and in the mixing region between the first outlet or the second outlet, and the porous member, annotated in Fig. 2), the mixing region (annotated in Fig. 2) being a region in which a mixed droplet of the first liquid and the second liquid is formed (shown in Figs. 2-4), the plurality of electrodes (6, 6a, 9, Figs. 1-4) being capable of applying voltage to at least one of a first liquid and a second liquid by a power source (5, Fig. 1) connected to the plurality of electrodes (6, 6a, 9, Figs. 1-4, Col. 2, Ln. 20-21, Col. 3, Ln. 1-19), charged droplets (12, 13, Figs. 1, 3) generated by mixing the first liquid and the second liquid together with the gas can be ejected from the ejection port (Col. 3, Ln. 45-67).
However, Jido does not disclose the outer tube including an ejection port covered with a porous member at a distance downstream of the first outlet and the second outlet at the one end, the porous member being disposed at only the ejection port. Yanagida teaches a spray ionization device (entire structure, Fig. 2) comprising an outer tube (22, Fig. 2) including an ejection port (15, Fig. 2) covered with a porous member (17, diffuser front cover is composed of a porous material, Fig. 2, Col. 5, Ln. 10-12) at a distance downstream of a first outlet (8, Fig. 2) and a second outlet (23, air is supplied into air chamber 23 and is ejected to the outside by passing through the outer cylinder cover 22, Fig. 2, Col. 7, Ln. 20-23) at the one end (shown in Fig. 2), the porous member (17, Fig. 2) being disposed at only the ejection port (15, shown in Fig. 2).
Jido and Yanagida are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray ionization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the porous member taught in Yanagida’s spray ionization device to Jido’s spray ionization device, to have the outer tube including an ejection port covered with a porous member at a distance downstream of the first outlet and the second outlet at the one end, the porous member being disposed at only the ejection port, and a plurality of electrodes arranged in the first channel, and in a mixing region between the first outlet or the second outlet, and the porous member. Doing so forms a coating film to a desired smoothness at a high transfer efficiency (Yanagida, Col. 1, Ln. 57-60).
However, Jido and Yanagida do not teach a plurality of electrodes arranged in the first channel, in the second channel, and in a mixing region between the first outlet or the second outlet, and the porous member. Benedek teaches a spray ionization device (entire structure, Fig. 2) comprising an electrode (1, Fig. 2) arranged in a second channel (passage between inlet 13 and opening 14, shown in Fig. 2).
Jido, Yanagida, and Benedek are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray ionization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the electrode taught in Benedek’s spray ionization device to Jido’s spray ionization device, as modified by Yanagida, to have a plurality of electrodes arranged in the first channel, in the second channel, and in a mixing region between the first outlet or the second outlet, and the porous member. Doing so provides the best possible uniform charge (Benedek, Col. 1, Ln. 65-67).
Regarding claim 2, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 1 above. Jido further discloses the second tube (1, Figs. 1-4) surrounds the first tube (2, Figs. 1-4) with a gap (space between the outer tube 1 and the inner tube 2, shown in Figs. 1-4), and the second channel (4, Figs. 1-4) is defined by an outer circumferential surface (external surface of inner tube 2, shown in Figs. 1-4) of the first tube (2, shown in Figs. 1-4) and an inner circumferential surface (internal surface of outer tube 2, shown in Figs. 1-4) of the second tube (2, shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 2 above. Jido further discloses the second outlet (annotated in Fig. 2 under claim 1) is provided downstream of the first outlet (annotated and shown in Fig. 2 under claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 3 above. Jido further discloses a distance between the second outlet and the first outlet is set to 0 m or more and 1000 m or less in an ejection direction (distance and other parameters can be varied, distance separating the end distance of the porous member 8 and the electrode 9 in an axial direction is 30 mm given in an example, distance between the second outlet and the first outlet would similarly be within this range, and the discharge distance is 30 mm given in another example, Col. 3, Ln. 25-44, Col. 5, Ln. 49-67, Col. 6, Ln. 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between the second outlet and the first outlet is set to 0 m or more and 1000 m or less in an ejection direction, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, in re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Providing a workable range for the distance between the second outlet and the first outlet in an ejection direction allows for specific distance for the liquid to travel through in the spray ionization device (Jido, Col. 3, Ln. 25-44, Col. 5, Ln. 49-67, Col. 6, Ln. 49-50).
Regarding claim 5, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 2 above. Jido further discloses the electrodes (6, Figs. 1-4) arranged in the first channel and/or the second channel (annotated in Fig. 2 under claim 1 above) among the plurality of electrodes (6, 6a, 9, Figs. 1-4) is formed of an electrical conductor material (not explicitly shown, but a high negative potential is applied to electrode 6, which indicates the material of the electrode 6 is an electrical conductor material, Col. 2, Ln. 49-68).
However, Jido does not disclose the electrodes arranged in the first channel and/or the second channel among the plurality of electrodes are the first tube formed of an electrical conductor material, and the power source is connected to the first tube. Benedek further teaches the electrodes (1, Fig. 2) arranged in the second channel (passage between inlet 13 and opening 14, shown in Fig. 2) among the plurality of electrodes (1, 4, Fig. 2) are the first tube (internal tube, shown in Fig. 2) formed of an electrical conductor material (not explicitly shown, but electrode 1 is connected to a power source 2, which provides its charge and indicates that the material of the electrode 1 is an electrical conductor material, Col. 4, Ln. 40-56), and the power source (2, Fig. 2) is connected to the first tube (internal tube, shown in Fig. 2).
Jido, Yanagida, and Benedek are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray ionization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the electrode taught in Benedek’s spray ionization device to Jido’s spray ionization device, as modified by Yanagida, to have the electrodes arranged in the first channel and/or the second channel among the plurality of electrodes are the first tube formed of an electrical conductor material, and the power source is connected to the first tube. Doing so provides the best possible uniform charge (Benedek, Col. 1, Ln. 65-67).
Regarding claim 6, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 1 above. Jido further discloses the first tube (2, Figs. 1-4) and the second tube (1, Figs. 1-4) are arranged in parallel in the gas channel (11, shown in Figs. 1-3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jido (US 4508265 A) in view of Yanagida et al. (US 5928731 A) and Benedek et al. (US 3735925 A) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Wells (US 6207955 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 6 above. However, Jido, Yanagida, and Benedek do not teach four or more liquid supply tubes. Wells teaches a spray ionization device (100, Fig. 2A) comprising four or more liquid supply tubes (104, Fig. 2B) are provided in the gas channel.
Jido, Yanagida, Benedek, and Wells are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray ionization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of four or more liquid supply tubes taught in Wells’ spray ionization device to Jido’s spray ionization device, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek above, to have four or more liquid supply tubes including the first tube(s) and the second tube(s) are provided in the gas channel. Doing so allows the user to maintain a desired flow better while reducing time and effort to maintain alignment of the tubes (Wells, Col. 5, Ln. 1-10).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jido (US 4508265 A) in view of Yanagida et al. (US 5928731 A) and Benedek et al. (US 3735925 A) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Fukui (WO 2019082374 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 1 above. However, Jido, Yanagida, and Benedek do not teach a third tube. Fukui discloses the spray ionization device (10, Fig. 4) further comprising:
a third tube (13, Figs. 4-6b) including a third channel (channel within third tube 13, shown in Figs. 4-5) through which a third liquid can flow (“sample liquid”, sample liquid also flows through third tube 13, Paragraph 0027), the third tube (13, Figs. 4-6b) including a third outlet (“downstream side” or right side, annotated and shown in Fig. 4, Paragraph 0023) for ejecting the third liquid at the one end (shown in Figs. 4-5, Paragraph 0031).
Jido, Yanagida, Benedek, and Fukui are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray ionization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the third tube taught in Fukui’s spray ionization device to Jido’s spray ionization device, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek above, to have a third tube including a third channel through which a third liquid can flow, the third tube including a third outlet for ejecting the third liquid at the one end. Doing so prevents corrosion and clogging of the first tube and permits another fluid to flow in the system (Fukui, Paragraphs 0012, 0036).
Regarding claim 9, Jido, as modified by Yanagida, Benedek, and Fukui, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 8 above. Fukui further teaches the third tube (13, Figs. 4-6b) is arranged in parallel with the first tube (11, Figs. 4-6b) and the second tube (12, Figs. 4-6b) in the gas channel (71, shown in Fig. 6b).
Regarding claim 10, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 1 above. However, Jido, Yanagida, and Benedek do not teach the gas channel includes a constriction portion. Fukui further discloses the gas channel (71, Fig. 6b) includes a constriction portion (annotated in Fig. 6b) arranged further toward an opposite end than the first outlet and the second outlet (shown in Fig. 6b), the constriction portion (annotated in Fig. 6b) configured to have a channel area (annotated in Fig. 6b) progressively decreasing from the opposite end to the constriction portion (annotated and shown in Fig. 6b).
Jido, Yanagida, Benedek, and Fukui are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray ionization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the constriction portion taught in Fukui’s spray ionization device to Jido’s spray ionization device, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek above, to have the gas channel includes a constriction portion arranged further toward an opposite end than the first outlet and the second outlet, the constriction portion configured to have a channel area progressively decreasing from the opposite end to the constriction portion. Doing so allows flow to be sprayed in a desired direction (Fukui, Paragraph 0035).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jido (US 4508265 A) in view of Yanagida et al. (US 5928731 A) and Benedek et al. (US 3735925 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sinyagin (US 7105058 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 1 above. However, Jido, Yanagida, and Benedek do not teach the spray ionization device comprising the power source connected to the plurality of electrodes is a high-voltage power source. Sinyagin teaches a spray ionization device (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a high-voltage power source (7, Fig. 1), and
the high-voltage power source (7, Fig. 1) applies voltage in a range of 0.5 kV to 10.0 kV at least one of the plurality of electrodes (Col. 3, Ln. 53-63).
Jido, Yanagida, Benedek, and Sinyagin are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray ionization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the high-voltage power source taught in Sinyagin’s spray ionization device to Jido’s spray ionization device, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek above, to have the power source connected to the plurality of electrodes is a high-voltage power source and the high-voltage power source applies voltage in a range of 0.5 kV to 10.0 kV to at least one of the plurality of electrodes. Doing so provides an efficient voltage to charge the electrodes (Sinyagin, Col. 3, Ln. 53-63).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jido (US 4508265 A) in view of Yanagida et al. (US 5928731 A) and Benedek et al. (US 3735925 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (WO 2018034005 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Jido, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 1 above. However, Jido, Yanagida, and Benedek do not teach a second outer tube. Nishimura teaches a spray ionization device (entire system, Fig. 1) comprising a second outer tube (108, Fig. 1) surrounding an outer tube (106, shown in Fig. 1) with a gap (107, shown in Fig. 1) and including a second gas channel (path within 106, shown in Fig. 1) through which a second gas can flow (Paragraph 0018), the second outer tube (108, Fig. 1) including a third outlet (annotated in Fig. 1), the second gas channel (path within 106, shown in Fig. 1) being defined by an outer circumferential surface of the outer tube (108, shown in Fig. 1) and an inner circumferential surface of the second outer tube (108, shown in Fig. 1).
Jido, Yanagida, Benedek, and Nishimura are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray ionization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the second outer tube taught in Nishimura’s spray ionization device to Jido’s spray ionization device, as modified by Yanagida and Benedek above, to have a second outer tube surrounding the outer tube with a gap and including a second gas channel through which a second gas can flow, the second outer tube including a third outlet downstream of the ejection port at the one end, and the second gas channel being defined by an outer circumferential surface of the outer tube and an inner circumferential surface of the second outer tube. Doing so improves the atomization effect (Nishimura, Paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 14, Jido, as modified by Yanagida, Benedek, and Nishimura, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 12 above. Nishimura further teaches a second heating unit (141, Fig. 1) for heating the second gas (Paragraph 0018).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jido (US 4508265 A) in view of Yanagida et al. (US 5928731 A) and Benedek et al. (US 3735925 A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nishimura et al. (WO 2018034005 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Fukui (WO 2019082374 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jido, as modified by Yanagida, Benedek, and Nishimura, discloses the spray ionization device according to claim 12 above. However, Jido, Yanagida, Benedek, and Nishimura do not teach the second outer tube has a diameter that at least progressively decreases in the inner circumferential surface toward the third outlet, at the one end. Fukui teaches the second outer tube (70, Fig. 6b) has a diameter (diameter of housing 70, shown in Fig. 6b) that at least progressively decreases in the inner circumferential surface (internal surface of housing 70, shown in Fig. 6b) toward the third outlet (outlet of tube 13, shown in Fig. 6b), at the one end (downstream end, shown in Fig. 6b).
Jido, Yanagida, Benedek, Nishimura, and Fukui are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray ionization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the second outer tube taught in Fukui’s spray ionization device to Jido’s spray ionization device, as modified by Yanagida, Benedek, and Nishimura above, to have the second outer tube has a diameter that at least progressively decreases in the inner circumferential surface toward the third outlet, at the one end. Doing so allows flow to be sprayed in a desired direction (Fukui, Paragraph 0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 O 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights