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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on April 9, 2026. Claims 1, 3, and 4 have been amended. Claims 2 and 6 have been withdrawn. Claim 7 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The amendment filed on April 9, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendments in paragraphs [0085-0092] are not supported by the original discourse filed on September 13, 2022.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 7 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 7 recites “the predetermined spacing is predetermined to produce a pressure loss in conveyance air along the undersurface of the baffle plate such that only liquid-formulation fine particles of diameter microscopic enough to be able to bring about Brownian motion can be conveyed by the conveyance air.”
The original filed disclosure dated September 13, 2022 does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession, at the time of filing, of a spraying apparatus in which the spacing of the baffle plate is selected so as to achieve a pressure loss that filters particles based on a threshold defined by Brownian motion behavior. Absent such disclosure, the limitation appears to introduce new matter by claiming a functional particle-size selection mechanism tied to Brownian motion that is not supported by the originally filed specification. The claim therefore exceeds of the original disclosure.
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 7 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 7 recites “the predetermined spacing is predetermined to produce a pressure loss in conveyance air along the undersurface of the baffle plate such that only liquid-formulation fine particles of diameter microscopic enough to be able to bring about Brownian motion can be conveyed by the conveyance air.”
The phrase “diameter microscopic enough to be able to bring about Brownian motion” renders the scope of the claim indefinite. The term “microscopic enough” is a term of degree without any objective boundary or standard for determining the scope of the claim. Additionally, the functional limitation “to be able to bring about Brownian motion” does not provide a clear threshold for particle size, as Brownian motion can occur over a wide and variable range of particle diameters depending on environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, fluid medium, and viscosity). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed “fine particles.”
Because the claim relies on subjective terminology and functional language without providing objective boundaries or measurable parameters, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are not reasonably certain.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takamiya (JP 5565173).
With regard to claim 1, Takamiya discloses a spraying apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising: an atomization tank (32) for storing a liquid formulation, the atomization tank including a top panel (35) and a body defining opposite widthwise-end sides (Fig. 2), and provided with a blow port (42) and a send-out port (37) each either in the top panel (35) or in an upper part of one of the opposite widthwise-end sides; an atomizing device consisting of ultrasonic vibration elements (34) arranged interiorly in the atomization tank (32), for atomizing the liquid formulation into liquid columns to generate fine particles (Fig. 2); a blower (24) configured to maintain a predetermined rpm and arranged outside the atomization tank (Fig. 2), for blowing interiorly into the atomization tank (32), through the blow port (42), conveyance air whereby the fine particles of the liquid formulation are conveyed within the atomization tank (32) and sent out of the atomization tank through the send-out port (37); and a baffle plate (39) arranged interiorly in the atomization tank to receive, along an undersurface of the baffle plate (Fig. 2), the liquid columns of the liquid formulation, the baffle plate (39) having a connection part connected to an inner side of the top panel of the atomization tank in a position between the blow port and the send-out port (Fig. 2), and being constituted by at least a flat element adjacent the blow port (42) and directed toward the one of the opposite widthwise-end sides of the atomization tank being either nearest the blow port or containing the blow port (Fig. 2), and ending in an edge part spaced apart at a predetermined spacing from the one of the widthwise-end sides (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Takamiya discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takamiya further discloses that the blow port (42) and the send-out port (37) are provided in the top panel of the atomization tank (32).
With regard to claims 4 and 5, the device of Takamiya discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since the device of Takamiya discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Takamiya will inherently perform all the method steps of claims 4 and 5.
With regard to claim 7, the device of Takamiya discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takamiya further discloses that the predetermined spacing is predetermined to produce a pressure loss in conveyance air along the undersurface of the baffle plate such that only liquid-formulation fine particles of diameter microscopic enough to be able to bring about Brownian motion can be conveyed by the conveyance air (“Further, a downwardly inclined guide plate 39 is provided on the inner surface of the lid 35 so as to be located in the path of the mist discharged from the atomized liquid discharge port 37 to prevent the discharge of large mist particles.”)
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights