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 Arguments
This office action is responsive to Request for Reconsideration filed on 03/26/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 4, 6 – 15 are pending, claims 2 – 3 & 5 were cancelled, no claims have been added & claim 1 & 4 have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 1, filed 03/29/2026, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant remark O-rings and Back-up rings, Trelleborg Sealing Solutions does not disclose the emphasis that the fill ratio of the seal to the sealing cavity is less than 90% as it discloses it should not be more than 85%, however, based on MPEP § 2144.05-I a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Due to this, the reference is considered to be in the range of the limitation. This reference is also not specifically a device, but goes into the reasoning as to why the O-ring would have a seal fill of 85% and provides reasoning for the obviousness of the modification.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/29/2026 have been fully considered and the examiner admits to the clerical error of labeling the seal as 34, but pointing in the annotated Figure the reference number 25. However, in the rejection the examiner points out Hausmann does not teach a flange and then uses Lowe to modify the seal of Hausmann. The clerical error is recognized, but the limitation is addressed in the rejection of record.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the flange of claim 1 is missing from Lowe based on the positioning, however, based on the limitation “a flange protruding outward from the sealing sleeve” Lowe clearly reads on the limitation based on Figure 6.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the remarks are contradictory, however, based on the limitation “a movement of the seal relative to the sealing cavity is further limited by the lug and grove” is stated in Lowe in Column 3, lines 1 – 15 reading on the limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the examiner is calling the gap and the groove the same reference, however, since the device of Lowe contains several gaps and grooves due to the corrugation one can be a gap and the other groove. Both of the limitations are represented by the teachings and the figure.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the seal of Hausmann is not the same as the seal of Lowe, however, no description or argument was made to prove this. Based on this, the examiner maintains the rejection of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 & 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann et al. (US 20130199521 A1) in view of Lowe et al (US 3370118 A) & O-Rings and Back-Up rings, Trelleborg Sealing Solution, September 2020.
Regarding claim 1, discloses an atomizer, comprising:
a pump housing 23 comprising an internal chamber 11 extending in an axial direction of the pump housing 23 and a mounting seat (see annotated Figure 3) disposed at a first end of the pump housing 23 and being in communication with the internal chamber 11 (Figure 2 & 3);
a seal 24 disposed in the mounting seat (see annotated Figure 3), the seal 24 comprising a sealing sleeve (Note: the seal is circular / Paragraph 0041) and a first bore (Note: the examiner is considering this as the inner diameter of the housing) in the sealing sleeve (Note: the seal is circular / Paragraph 0041) and coaxial with the internal chamber 11, and at least a part of the seal 24 resting against a mounting surface (Note: the seal is shown to rest on top of the mounting seat) of the mounting seat (see annotated Figure 3) (Paragraph 0041);
PNG
media_image1.png
698
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Annotated Figure 3 of Hausmann et al. (US 20130199521 A1)
a pressing member 25 at least partially disposed within the mounting seat (see annotated Figure 3) and resting against the seal 24 to press and keep the seal 24 in the mounting seat (see annotated Figure 3), the pressing member 25 comprising a second bore (Note: the examiner considers this as the new inner diameter of the housing) coaxial with the internal chamber 11 (Figure 3); and
a plunger 9, a first end of the plunger 9 being disposed within the internal chamber 11 of the pump housing 23 through the second bore (Note: the examiner considers this as the new inner diameter of the housing) of the pressing member and the first bore (Note: the examiner considers this as the new inner diameter of the housing) of the seal 24, and the first end of the plunger being capable of reciprocating in the internal chamber 11 to pump fluid in or out of the internal chamber 11 (Paragraph 0041);
wherein the pump housing 23, the pressing member 25 and the plunger 9 together define a sealing cavity to accommodate the seal 10, and when the seal 10 is in the sealing cavity. (Paragraph 0041)
Hausmann does not disclose a fill ratio of the seal to the sealing cavity is less than 90%.
However, Trelleborg Sealing Solutions discloses a fill ratio of the seal to the sealing cavity is less than 90%. (Page 54, Paragraph 1)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lowe wherein a fill ratio of the seal to the sealing cavity is less than 90% as it is important for the groove fill of the O-Ring to avoid any detrimental effects on the sealing performance. Because of this it is recommended that the groove fill should not be more than 85% to allow for thermal expansion, volume swell due to fluid exposure and tolerance effects. (Page 54, Paragraph 1) Also, based on MPEP § 2144.05-I a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Due to this, the reference is considered to be in the range of the limitation.
Hausmann discloses mounting surface of the mounting seat (see annotated Figure 3) and a seal 24. (Paragraph 0041 / Figure 3)
Hausmann does not disclose a flange protruding outward from the sealing sleeve.
Lowe discloses a flange(s) 18a protruding outward from the sealing sleeve 10.
(Figure 6 / Abstract)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date to have a flange(s) protruding outward from the sealing sleeve in order to case a buckle effect laterally and circumferentially between a sealing sleeve and a succession of corrugations to afford an improved sealing function. (Abstract)
Modified Hausmann discloses wherein a portion of the sealing cavity away from the flange 18a of the seal 24 in a direction of movement of the plunger 9 comprises a gap that is not filled by the seal 24. (Lowe, Figure 4 teaches how the corrugated flanges create a space that is not filled with the seal)
wherein a lug (Figure 6) is disposed on the flange 18a of the seal 10, the lug extends in an axial direction of the sealing sleeve B, the sealing cavity comprises a groove (see annotated Figure 6) that matches with the lug (see annotated Figure 6) to accommodate the lug (see annotated Figure 6), and a movement of the seal 10 relative to the sealing cavity is further limited by the lug and the groove (see annotated Figure 6). (Lowe, Column 3, lines 1 – 15)
PNG
media_image2.png
514
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6: Annotated Figure 6 of App. US 3370118 A
Regarding claim 4, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 1
Modified Hausmann discloses a gap, a sealing cavity and a plunger. (As disclosed in claim 1 & 3)
Lowe further teaches corrugated flanges 18a that have gaps in which the height increases as a force is given to the plunger (Figure 2 – 3)
However, based on Figure 2 – 3 of Lowe it can be understood that the height of the gap reaches almost a 100% from 0% height based on the forced exerted on the plunger. This height is based on the distance the plunger travels from and to the end wall. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Based on the absent teaching as to criticality of the height of the sealing cavity in the direction of movement of the plunger, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Hausmann discloses a first bore, a seal and a side wall of the first bore (Note: the examiner considers this to be the diameter of the hole where the seal is installed)
Modified Hausmann does not disclose a plurality of annular corrugated protrusions surrounding the plunger.
Lowe discloses a plurality of annular corrugated protrusions 18b surrounding the plunger 36. (Figure 2 / 6)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filling date to modify Hausmann to include a plurality of annular corrugated protrusions surrounding the plunger in order to provide an improved sealing function by causing the plunger sleeves to buckle laterally and circumferentially into the corrugations. (Abstract)
Regarding claim 10, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Hausmann discloses wherein the fill ratio of the seal 24 to the sealing cavity 24 is 60% to 89%. (Note: it was previously disclosed the fill ration is recommended to be less than 85%)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lowe wherein the fill ratio of the seal 24 to the sealing cavity is 60% to 89% as it is important for the groove fill of the O-Ring to avoid any detrimental effects on the sealing performance. Because of this it is recommended that the groove fill should not be more than 85% to allow for thermal expansion, volume swell due to fluid exposure and tolerance effects. (Page 54, Paragraph 1)
Regarding claim 11, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 10.
Modified Hausmann discloses wherein the fill ratio of the seal 24 to the sealing cavity 24 is 75% to 89%. (Note: it was previously disclosed the fill ration is recommended to be less than 85%)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lowe wherein the fill ratio of the seal 24 to the sealing cavity is 75% to 89% as it is important for the groove fill of the O-Ring to avoid any detrimental effects on the sealing performance. Because of this it is recommended that the groove fill should not be more than 85% to allow for thermal expansion, volume swell due to fluid exposure and tolerance effects. (Page 54, Paragraph 1)
Regarding claim 12, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim II.
Modified Hausmann discloses wherein the fill ratio of the seal 24 to the sealing cavity 24 is 80% to 89%. (Note: it was previously disclosed the fill ration is recommended to be less than 85%)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lowe wherein the fill ratio of the seal 24 to the sealing cavity is 80% to 89% as it is important for the groove fill of the O-Ring to avoid any detrimental effects on the sealing performance. Because of this it is recommended that the groove fill should not be more than 85% to allow for thermal expansion, volume swell due to fluid exposure and tolerance effects. (Page 54, Paragraph 1)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann et al. (US 20130199521 A1) in view of Lowe et al (US 3370118 A) & O-Rings and Back-Up rings, Trelleborg Sealing Solution, September 2020 as claimed in claim 1, in view of Springston et al. (US 2287456 A)
Regarding claim 7, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Hausmann does not disclose wherein a chamfer is formed at an end of a side wall of the first bore of the seal that is away from the mounting surface.
Springston discloses a chamfer 15 is formed at an end of a side wall of the first bore 11 of the seal 18 that is away from the mounting surface. (Column 2, lines 37 – 42)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filling date to modify Hausmann to include wherein a chamfer is formed at an end of a side wall of the first bore of the seal that is away from the mounting surface as it would create a more tight engagement with the wall of the bore. (Column 2, lines 37 – 42)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann et al. (US 20130199521 A1) in view of Lowe et al (US 3370118 A) & O-Rings and Back-Up rings, Trelleborg Sealing Solution, September 2020 as claimed in claim 1, in view of Boeck et al. (US 20070282276 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Hausmann discloses the seal 24. (as claimed in claim 1)
Boeck discloses the seal comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of rubber, silicone, or thermoplastic elastomer. (Paragraph 0034)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Hausmann the seal comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of rubber, silicone, or thermoplastic elastomer as it a material that is suitable for pharmaceutical agents. (Paragraph 0034)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over - Hausmann et al. (US 20130199521 A1) in view of Lowe et al (US 3370118 A) & O-Rings and Back-Up rings, Trelleborg Sealing Solution, September 2020 as claimed in claim 1, in view of Raines et al (US 2004/0195538 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Hausmann discloses further comprising:
an external retainer (see annotated Figure 3), the mounting seat (see annotated Figure 3), the pump housing 28 and the external retainer (see annotated Figure 3) is configured to fix the pressing member 25 in the mounting seat (see annotated Figure 3) (Figure 2)
Modified Hausmann does not disclose an internal thread at its an inner wall, comprises an external thread at its outer wall and a thread connection between the internal thread and the external thread
Raines discloses an internal thread at its an inner wall, comprises an external thread at its outer wall and a thread connection between the internal thread and the external thread. (Paragraph 0017)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filling date to modify Hausmann and incorporate an internal thread at its an inner wall, comprises an external thread at its outer wall and a thread connection between the internal thread and the external thread. This would ensure an engagement between the two parts that allows a relative quicker connect/disconnect. (Paragraph 0040)
Claim(s) 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann et al. (US 20130199521 A1) in view of Lowe et al (US 3370118 A) & O-Rings and Back-Up rings, Trelleborg Sealing Solution, September 2020 as claimed in claim 1, in view of Bach et al (US 20110290239 A1) & Boeck et al (US 8061350 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Lowe discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
Modified Hausmann discloses the plunger 9. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Hausmann does not disclose a reservoir, a fluid channel, and the fluid in the reservoir is capable of flowing through the fluid channel into the internal chamber of the pump housing.
Boeck discloses a fluid channel 10, and the fluid is capable of flowing through the fluid channel 10 into the internal chamber 9 of the pump housing (Page 4, Section 4, lines 51 – 59).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hausmann by incorporating a fluid channel, and the fluid in the reservoir is capable of flowing through the fluid channel into the internal chamber of the pump housing as it allows the liquid to be delivered to the user by aspiration with the corresponding axial movement. (Column 4, lines 51 – 59)
Bach discloses a reservoir 3 (paragraph 0030)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hausmann by incorporating a reservoir that is able to contain the fluid that will be used in the process and allows the fluid to be sucked out into the pressure chamber through the non-return valve. (Paragraph 0030 / Paragraph 0033)
Regarding claim 14, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 13.
Modified Hausmann discloses wherein a check valve 10 is disposed on the first end of the plunger 9 (Figure 3); the check valve 10 is configured that, when the plunger 9 moves in a direction away from the internal chamber 9, the check valve is open and the fluid in the reservoir flows into the internal chamber 9 through the fluid channel and the check valve 10, and when the plunger 9 moves in a direction toward the internal chamber 11, the check valve 10 is closed to block the fluid from flowing back to the fluid channel. (Hausmann, Paragraph 0041)
Regarding claim 15, Modified Hausmann discloses the atomizer as claimed in claim 14.
Modified Hausmann discloses a nozzle 12d & 12e disposed at a second end of the pump housing 23 opposite to the first end (Hausmann, Figure 3 & 4), the nozzle 12d & 12e comprising one or more micro-channels in communication with the internal chamber 11 (Paragraph 0042); wherein when the plunger 9 moves in the direction toward the internal chamber 11, the fluid in the internal chamber 11 is squeezed out of the atomizer through the micro-channels of the nozzle 12d & 12e to form a jet or aerosol A (Paragraph 0038)
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 GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights