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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10, 12, 14, 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make the alignment vertical such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on JP Patent No. 6987481 to 織田 容征 (PCT/JP2020/001477, United States Patent Application No. 2022/0203390 to Orita et al relied upon as the English Language equivalent thereof, hereinafter referred to as Orita) is presented below.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by JP Patent No. 6987481 to 織田 容征 (PCT/JP2020/001477, United States Patent Application No. 2022/0203390 to Orita et al relied upon as the English Language equivalent thereof, hereinafter referred to as Orita).
In regards to Claim 10, Orita teaches an atomizing apparatus Fig. 1 for film formation [0003], comprising: a raw-material container 12 configured to accommodate a raw-material solution 15 , the raw-material container including a raw-material container side wall that extends vertically and a raw-material container bottom; a cylindrical member 3 including a cylindrical member side wall 3A and a cylindrical member lower end (bottom of 3A), wherein the cylindrical member is configured to spatially connect inside of the raw-material container to an outer unit (MT/ mist outside [0002-0004], and is disposed such that the cylindrical member lower end of the cylindrical member does not touch a liquid surface of the raw-material solution in the raw-material container (as shown in Fig. 1); an ultrasound generator 2 having at least one ultrasound generation source configured to emit ultrasound (as there are two); and a liquid tank (water tank 10) where the ultrasound propagates to the raw-material solution through a middle solution (water), wherein a side wall of the raw material container and a side wall of the cylindrical member both extend vertically (see vertical alignment), an intersection between a center line of an ultrasound-emitting surface of the ultrasound generation source and a plane containing an outer-most side wall surface of the cylindrical member and an extension of the outer-most side wall surface of the cylindrical member is below a lower end point of the cylindrical member (as it intersects with 3B), and the center line reaches intersects a vertically extending portion of the raw-material container side wall of the raw material container that extends vertically (as it would intersect with the vertical planes of the vertical sidewalls of 12, the ultrasonic planes of 22 being angled).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Patent No. 6987481 to 織田 容征 (PCT/JP2020/001477, United States Patent Application No. 2022/0203390 to Orita et al relied upon as the English Language equivalent thereof, hereinafter referred to as Orita) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0223953 to Tomona et al.
In regards to Claims 12, 14, and 16, Orita teaches a height H15 of 30-40 mm [0065].
Orita teaches the ultrasound sources are angled but does not expressly teach a distance between the intersection and the lower end point is 10 mm or more or 25 mm or more.
Tomona teaches a mist generating device which creates atomized fine particles Fig. 1-4 and 14 comprising a raw material container 20 configured to accommodate a raw material solution Liq2(WA), a cylindrical member 29 configured to spatially connect inside the raw material container to an outer unit (83, more specifically shown in Fig. 4), and disposed to that a lower end of the cylindrical member does not touch a liquid surface of the raw material solution in the raw material container (as shown in Fig. 1-4) and an ultrasonic transducer 40 Fig. 1/an ultrasound generator having at least one ultrasound generation source 43 (power) and a liquid tank 19 where the ultrasound propagates to the raw material solution through a middle solution Liq1(W) [0044-0053], provided that a center line of an ultrasound emitting surface of the ultrasound generation source is designated as u and is provided such that an intersection P between the center line u and a plane containing a sidewall surface of the cylindrical member 27 is located below a lower end point B of the cylindrical member [0039-0272], the ultrasound generation source is provided such that the center line u reaches a side wall of the raw-material container, as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 below
PNG
media_image2.png
360
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tomona further teaches that 27 is connected to the dispersed liquid collecting mechanism so that liquid that hasn’t been atomized can be trapped and returned to be atomized again, thus atomizing the liquid effectively [0223-0229], and it creates ultrasonic atomization efficiency to increase [0019-0021].
Tomona teaches the ultrasound generation source is provided such that a distance between the intersection P and the lower end point B is 10 mm or more, as the distance of Dc is 2 cm, or 20 mm [0216] or 5 cm, 50 mm [0217] or that the ultrasound generation source is provided such that a distance between the intersection P and the lower end point B is 10 mm or more, as the distance of Dc is 5 cm, 50 mm [0217], such that the distance is 25 mm or more as Tomona teaches that the ultrasonic wave is reflected with an angle adjustment mirror lens 25 [0129], the angle being adjusted so that the amount of atomization can be changed, which also adjusts implicitly the distance of the intersection points and the lower ends of the cylinder (as the angle changes the center line), such that it is a result effective variable to change the angle and thus the centerline for the ultrasonic source.
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. As the teachings of Orita in view of Tomona expressly teach the ranges of the angles (and thus the distances as claimed which are dependent on the angle of the centerline) as taught are result effective variables for the amount of atomization such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The Examiner notes that this application of Tomona to Orita is only for the angle of which the ultrasonic waves are applied to the raw material liquid. As such, all aspects of Orita remain while changing the direction of the ultrasonic source angle would change, which would change the centerline and thus a distance between the intersection and the lower end point, which have distances of above 10/25 mm in the teachings of Tomona already. Thus modifying the angle as a result effective variable to optimize the atomization, would through routine optimization, implicitly form a distance of above 10-25 mm.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716