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 07/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 1-12 and 14 are amended. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claims 15-16 are new.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 4-7 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 4 and 5.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“and configured” in line 6 should read “configured”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “the inlet channel comprises an inlet portion within the static base and orthogonal to the inlet segment” in lines 2-3 and “the outlet channel comprises an outlet portion within the static base and orthogonal to the outlet segment” in lines 3-4, however the instant specification does not disclose an inlet portion or an outlet portion, wherein an inlet portion is orthogonal to the inlet segment, or wherein an outlet portion is orthogonal to the outlet segment, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing. Correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the inlet segment and the outlet segment each have a semi-circular cross-sectional shape around the rotating shaft” in lines 2-3, however the instant specification does not disclose a semi-circular cross-sectional shape around the rotating shaft, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing. Correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “an opening between the face of the static base and the spinning disc”, however the instant specification does not disclose such an opening, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing. Correction is required.
Claims dependent on those rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 16 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 16 recites the limitation "the circular opening" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bosswell et al. (US 5067554 A, cited in Office Action dated 09/30/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Bosswell teaches a centrifugal melt extraction apparatus (Claim 6, Fig. 1-4); as the apparatus produces mineral powder, it may be considered an “atomization device” in accord with the instant claims. Bosswell teaches the device comprises a motor rotatably driving a spinning disc 15 by means of a rotating shaft 18 (Col. 3 line 28, Fig. 2-3) and a mandrel 20 (i.e., a static base) around the rotating shaft 18 (Col. 3 lines 28-30, Fig. 3). Bosswell teaches a bearing surface 19 (i.e., “at least one bearing”) placed between the rotating shaft and the static base (Col. 3 lines 28-30, Fig. 3).
Bosswell teaches a mandrel 20 (analogous to a static base) with a chamber 24 into which cooling water is circulated (i.e., a cooling circuit) for cooling the spinning disc 15 (Col. 3 lines 30-39, Fig. 2-3). Bosswell teaches the cooling circuit comprises an inlet channel 25 within the static base 20 (Col. 3 lines 34-36, Fig. 2-3) which cools the disc 15 (i.e., is configured to deliver liquid coolant to the spinning disc (Col. 3 lines 45-48). Bosswell teaches the inlet channel comprising an inlet segment which is parallel to the rotating shaft 18 (Fig. 3), and an outlet channel 26 within the static base 20 and configured to remove the liquid coolant (Fig. 3, Col. 3 lines 34-37), the outlet channel comprising an outlet segment which is parallel to the rotating shaft 18 (Fig. 3). Bosswell teaches wherein a first end of the inlet segment 25 and a first end of the outlet segment 26 are on a face of the static base 20
Regarding claim 4, Bosswell teaches at least one sealing gasket 23 arranged between the static base and the spinning disc 15 (Col. 3 line 34, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Bosswell teaches a sealing gasket 23, which would necessarily be composed of some type of sliding seal material as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Bosswell does not disclose the sealing gasket 23 to move, and that the gasket seals fixed mandrel 20 (Col. 3 lines 29-30, 34); therefore said at least one sealing gasket is arranged in a stationary manner.
Regarding claim 9, Bosswell teaches the spinning disc 15 is made of metal (Col. 3 lines 40-44) or ceramic (Col. 3 lines 44-45).
Regarding claim 11, Bosswell teaches wherein the spinning disc 15 has a diameter of between 10 and 20 cm (100-200 mm) (Col. 3 lines 65-67) or between 5 and 10 cm (50-100 mm) (Col. 3 line 68 – Col. 4 line 3), both ranges lying entirely in the claimed range of diameters.
Regarding claim 12, Bosswell teaches a specific embodiment where the spinning disc 15 has a thickness of 2 mm (Col. 6 lines 36-43), which lies in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, Bosswell teaches wherein the face of the static base 20 on which the first end of the inlet segment and the first end of the outlet segment are located faces the spinning disc 15 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Bosswell teaches an opening 24 between the face of the static base 20 and the spinning disc 15 (Fig. 3, Col. 3 lines 28-39), wherein outer sides of the opening are defined by a sealing gasket 23 and inner sides of the circular opening are defined by the rotating shaft 18 (Fig. 2-3, Col. 3 lines 28-39).
Therefore, the disclosure of Bosswell et al. is held to anticipate the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosswell.
Regarding claim 2, Bosswell teaches wherein the inlet channel 25 comprises an inlet portion within the static base 20 (Fig. 3) and wherein the outlet channel comprises an outlet portion 26 within the static base 20 (Fig. 3). Bosswell does not teach wherein the inlet portion is orthogonal to the inlet segment or wherein the outlet portion is orthogonal to the outlet segment, however the inlet portion being orthogonal to the inlet segment and the outlet portion being orthogonal to the outlet segment as claimed would comprise nothing more than a rearrangements of parts of the prior art devices. It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to rearrange parts of an apparatus when doing so would not modify the operation of the device; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04 (VI) C.
Regarding claim 3, Bosswell does not teach wherein the inlet segment and the outlet segment each have a semi-circular cross-sectional shape around the rotating shaft, however the inlet and outlet segments each having a semi-circular cross-sectional shape around the rotating shaft as claimed would comprise nothing more than a rearrangements of parts of the prior art devices. It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to rearrange parts of an apparatus when doing so would not modify the operation of the device; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04 (VI) C.
Regarding claim 8, Bosswell teaches wherein said spinning disc 15 and said rotating shaft 18 consist of multiple parts as evidenced by their separate reference numbers and the need for a screw to attach the disc to the shaft 18 (see Fig. 3-4).
Bosswell does not teach wherein the spinning disc and the rotating shaft consist of a single part, however it has long been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of a multi-piece construction in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) B. As in the instant case Bosswell only differs from claim 8 in that the spinning disc and rotating shaft are multiple pieces attached by a screw, while in the instant case the spinning disc and rotating shaft are attached by being a single piece, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as the components are attached in either case.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosswell as applied to claim 4 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Singer (US 4515864 A, cited in Office Action dated 09/30/2024).
Bosswell, discussed above, does not teach wherein the atomization device further comprises at least one sealing gasket arranged between the stationary base and the rotating shaft.
Singer teaches an atomization device (Abstract, Col. 1 lines 64-65) which comprises a motor 7 rotatably driving a spinning disc 8 by means of a rotating shaft 9 (Col. 3 lines 27-30, Fig. 1), thus Singer and Bosswell are analogous to the claimed invention as both are directed to atomizers that drive a disc using a motor to atomize material. Singer teaches a seal 10 (i.e., a sealing gasket) arranged between fixed chamber 1 (analogous to a stationary base) and rotating shaft 9 in that device (Col. 3 lines 17-19, 30-31). Singer teaches the chamber is capable of being evacuated and filled with an inert gas (Col. 3 lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a sealing gasket between the stationary base and the rotating shaft as taught by Singer to the atomization device of Bosswell, as doing so would prevent fluid from escaping via the gap between the shaft and the base, in the case of Bosswell preventing cooling water from escaping the cooling circuit.
Thus, the combined disclosures of Bosswell et al. and Singer would have suggested a device as claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosswell as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Metcalfe et al. (US 4178335 A, cited in Office Action dated 09/30/2024).
Bosswell, discussed above, does not teach wherein the spinning disc comprises a refractory, anti-corrosive and/or anti-wear ceramic coating on its outer surface.
Metcalfe teaches an atomization device (Abstract, Col. 2 line 24, Fig. 1) which comprises a motor 7 rotatably driving a spinning disc 2 by means of a rotating shaft 4 (Col. 2 lines 37-41, Fig. 1), thus Metcalfe and Bosswell are analogous to the claimed invention as both are directed to atomizers that drive a disc using a motor to atomize material. Metcalfe teaches wherein the spinning disc in that device comprises an insulating and thermal shock resistant (i.e., refractory) (Col. 3 lines 22-26) and erosion-resistant surface (i.e., anti-corrosive and/or anti-wear) ceramic coating on its outer surface (Col. 3 lines 19-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a ceramic coating as taught by Metcalfe to the atomization device of Bosswell, as doing so would prevent contamination of liquid fluids, prevent surface melting of the atomizer body and limit heat transfer from the metal being atomized, and provide necessary thermal shock resistance as taught by Metcalfe (Col. 3 lines 19-26).
Thus, the combined disclosures of Bosswell et al. and Metcalfe et al. would have suggested a device as claimed to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosswell as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of BAC (“Closing the Loop What’s best for your system?”, supplied with Office Action dated 09/30/2024).
Bosswell does not teach wherein the cooling circuit in the device as discussed above is a closed circuit.
BAC teaches a number of benefits achieved by using closed circuit cooling in a cooling system, including higher operational efficiency, lower maintenance costs, greater reliability, and longer system lifetime (pg. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a closed circuit cooling circuit as taught by BAC in the cooling circuit of Bosswell, as doing so would improve the operational efficiency, reduce maintenance costs, improve reliability, and increase the lifetime of the cooling circuit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Bosswell does not disclose or suggest the claimed features of claim 1, as Bosswell does not teach inlet channels comprising segments on a face of a static base (see pg. 5-6 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bosswell discloses an inlet duct 25 (i.e., an inlet channel) and an outlet duct 26 (i.e., an outlet channel) which pass through mandrel 20 (analogous to a static base), where as the inlet and outlet channels 25 and 26 comprise segments that protrude to a left/inward side of the static base 20, the inlet and outlet channels comprise segments are on a face of the static base as claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that a person of skill in the art would recognize the configuration of claim 1 is more effective for cooling an atomization device (see pg. 6-7 of remarks), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., more effective cooling) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733