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 05/21/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-16 is/are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are amended. Claim(s) 13 is/are cancelled.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(a) to claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks regarding claim 2.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) to claim(s) 16 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 16.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(a) to claim(s) 3 is maintained.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 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. While the instant drawings depict in Fig. 2 annular sectors that do not extend to be ½ of the area of a circle (i.e., a semicircle), with respect to angle or distance from the center of the circle, therefore 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 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, 6-7, 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, which is adjacent to inner portion of the cylinder 21 of the disc 15 (Col. 3 lines 30-34, Fig. 3), where the inner portion of the cylinder of the disc rotates (Col. 3 lines 31-32) (i.e., wherein the face is adjacent to the spinning disc).
Claim(s) 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, and 15-16 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 11/21/2025. Claim(s) 4, 7, 9, 11-12, and 15-16 has/have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosswell.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 11/21/2025. Claim(s) 2-3 and 8 has/have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
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).
Claim(s) 5 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 11/21/2025. Claim(s) 5 has/have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
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).
Claim(s) 10 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 11/21/2025. Claim(s) 10 has/have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
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).
Claim(s) 14 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 11/21/2025. Claim(s) 14 has/have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered with the following effect:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC 112(a) should be withdrawn, as the instant drawings allegedly depict a “semi-circular” cross-section, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, the instant specification does disclose a cross section with some curvature which extends from a distance along a smaller inner radius of a circle from the center of the face of the base to a larger outer radius of a circle from the same center, the disclosed shape is inconsistent with that of a true semi-circle, nor do the portions approximate a semi-circle as the cross section neither extends to 180° or the entire distance from the center to the outside radius. Applicant’s disclosure instead at best appears to support a pair of annular sectors, therefore the rejection of claim 3 as failing to comply with the written description requirement is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Bosswell does not teach a face immediately adjacent to the lower surface of the disk (see pg. 8-9 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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, which is adjacent to inner portion of the cylinder 21 of the disc 15 (Col. 3 lines 30-34, Fig. 3), where the inner portion of the cylinder of the disc rotates (Col. 3 lines 31-32) (i.e., wherein the face is adjacent to the spinning disc). Therefore, while the openings of the ducts are on the side of a mandrel, they are adjacent to the spinning disc, which makes up the left, upper, and lower surfaces of the compartment 24 into which the cooling liquid is circulated through.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that orthogonal portions, specific cross-sectional shapes, and a single-part construction are not mere obvious design choices, as they are designed to minimize misalignments and vibrations at high rotational speeds (see pg. 9-10 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, the invention according to the instant specification minimizes unwanted misalignments and vibrations in the assembly, the instant specification attributes this solely to the use of a single-part construction (instant specification: pg. 4 lines 18—20), and therefore does not relate to orthogonal portions or specific cross-sectional shapes. While the instant specification does disclose such benefits as arising from the use of a single-part construction, the use of a single-part construction is prima facie obvious irrespective of expected advantages, as such is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. Further, such advantages (that reducing the number of parts would eliminate vibrations or misalignments as they are no longer distinct parts which can have vibrations or misalignments between them) would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus cannot form the basis of e.g., an unexpected result of using a single-part construction.
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 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
Prosecution Insights