DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a reply to the applicant’s reply dated November 7, 2025.
Claim 1 remains pending in this application.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US 5,000,152 A) in view of Youngberg (US 3,963,408).
McCauley discloses a fuel droplet micronizer (44, Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) for pulverizing the fuel droplet fed to an internal combustion engine, comprising: a micronization assistance part composed of one or plural filament-like materials arranged so as to not intersect each other made of conductor or semi-conductor (column 4, line 24-42; Fig. 5); and a ring (46) for securing the one or plural filament-like materials, wherein the micronization assistance part is installed in an intake tube feeding mixed gas of air and the fuel droplet into the internal combustion engine and located between an ejection port whereby a fuel ejection apparatus (not shown) ejects the fuel droplet into the intake tube and an end of the intake tube whereby the mixed gas of air and the fuel droplet is fed to the internal combustion engine (Fig. 1; column 4, line 24-42), and the micronization assistance part is disposed in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the intake tube, and the micronization assistance part covers the cross-section of the intake tube so that the fuel droplets in the mixed gas are pulverized by colliding with the micronization
PNG
media_image1.png
9
10
media_image1.png
Greyscale
assistance part and are then fed the internal combustion engine (claim 1, d), and the micronization assistance part is having higher potential than the intake tube (intake tube is not connected to a current) thereby increasing the probability of collision with fuel droplets containing an electric charge generated by flow electrification during ejection by the fuel ejection apparatus; and the fuel droplet is smashed and pulverized by the micronization assistance part and then fed to the internal combustion engine (claim 1).
McCurley also discloses: “The electrical circuit associated with the electrical current grid means can be either a d.c. or a.c. circuit. Typically, it will involve a d.c. current from the battery of the engine either directly or through an appropriate chopping or oscillation circuit or an a.c. current directly from an alternator associated with the engine. Similarly, the electrical circuit associated with the ultrasonic transducer can be an appropriate oscillation circuit as generally know in the art.” Column 5, line 21-29). McCurley is silent to the electric charge on the fuel droplet leaks to the micronization assistance part when the fuel droplet is smashed and pulverized by the micronization assistance part; and, wherein the micronization assistance part is positively charged.
Youngberg discloses a micronization assistance part composed of one or plural filament-like materials wherein the micronization assistance part is positively charged (claim 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a positive charge to the micronization assistance part of McCurley as taught by Youngberg to achieve the micronization of the fuel particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art McCauley does not disclose a coating for the Ni-chrome heating wire and that his invention is unlikely to cause ionization.
Examiner asserts that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specifications. In this instance, applicant claims: “a micronization assistance part composed of one or plural filament-like materials arranged so as to not intersect each other made of conductor or semi-conductor”. McCauley discloses Ni-chrome wire which is a known filament-like material, and a conductor. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., coating) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Further, and as acknowledged by the applicant, McCauley discloses a method of dispersion and atomization of the fuel and air mixture. In response to applicant's argument that McCauley does not disclose ionization, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It appears that the applicant is referring to micronization, as disclosed in the specifications. The specifications do not disclose a method of ionization, which is a different process from the micronization.
In addition, applicant argues that McCauley’s invention comprises a vortex static generator and its negative impact on the invention. Page 4. In this instance, based on the BRI, McCauley discloses all the features as recited in the claims. And, his additional features can not be proven to impede on the efficiency and the combustion. In fact, McCauley discloses: “The static vortex generator creates physical mixing of the air and fuel mixture as well as centrifugally impinging the air and fuel mixture against the ultrasonic transducer(s) for further atomization. Passing through the heated grid promotes thermal vaporization as well as magnetic field perturbation on a molecular level. The resulting increased dispersion and atomization of the fuel into the air improves engine performance including fuel economy and ease of starting.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instance, prior art Youngberg is applied as a teaching reference for a positively charged micronization assistance element, with the intake pipe being negatively charged, and causing fuel and air mixture to pass “through the positively charged foraminous member where the fuel particles become positively charged, and in passing into the engine intake manifold are attracted to the interior walls of the manifold and engine to be spread out in thin layers for maximized evaporation.” (Abstract)
For the reasons noted above, the rejection as provided, is deemed proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TEUTA B HOLBROOK whose telephone number is (571)270-3276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, LINDSAY LOW can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/TEUTA HOLBROOK/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747