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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 4, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on November 4, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claim 4 has been amended to depend from claim 1. As a result, claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 are pending for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter “lateral surface” recited in claims 1 and 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the blow port is arranged along the top panel of the atomization tank more to the one widthwise end of the atomization tank than is the first connection part, and more to the other widthwise end of the atomization tank than is the edge part.” It is suggested to amend to -the blow port is arranged along the top panel of the atomization tank more to the one widthwise end of the atomization tank than -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “blowing element” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification, the corresponding structure for the limitation “blowing element” has been interpreted as a fan in light of paragraph [0111].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "sheetlike" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "sheetlike"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites "the send-out port is provided on an inner surface of the atomization tank and, with the connection part put in between, more toward said other widthwise end" in last line. However, it does not specify what the “connection part put in between” refers to or defines its structure or relationship to the other components, so the limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because of dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 2006/0213508 A1) in view of Xie et al. (CN 109092616A).
With regard to claim 1, Murray discloses a spraying apparatus (40) comprising: an atomization tank (48) enabled for storing a liquid formulation (Fig. 6); an atomizing device (110) being ultrasonic vibration elements (114) arranged in the atomization tank interior (Fig. 6), for atomizing the liquid formulation to generate fine particles (42); a blower (156) furnished with a blowing element enabled for maintaining predetermined rpm (Par. [0050]), for blasting into the atomization tank interior (Fig. 6), through a blow port (74) provided in the atomization tank, conveyance air that is for conveying the fine particles of the liquid formulation (Fig. 6); a send-out port (76), provided in the atomization tank, through which the fine particles are sent out together with the conveyance air (Fig. 6); and a baffle plate (158) arranged in the atomization tank interior so as to receive liquid columns of the liquid formulation (Fig. 6 and Par. [0052]), produced by the ultrasonic vibration elements (114); wherein the baffle plate (158) is constituted by a flat sheetlike element arranged inclined diagonally downward (Fig. 6), directed toward one widthwise end of the atomization tank (right side of atomization tank as seen in Fig. 6), and is furnished with an edge part disposed in the atomization tank spaced apart at a predetermined spacing from a lateral surface along the one widthwise end (Fig. 6), and with a connection part connected to an inner side of a top panel (one end of baffle 158 is in connection with top cover 50) of the atomization tank; the edge part is arranged more to the one widthwise end of the atomization tank than is the connection part (open edge of baffle 158 is arranged closer to the right side of atomization tank as seen in Fig. 6); and the send-out port (76) is provided on an inner surface of the atomization tank (Fig. 6) and, with the connection part put in between, more toward said other widthwise end (sent-out port 87 is arranged closer to left side of atomization tank as seen in Fig. 6).
Murray does not disclose that the blow port is arranged along the top panel of the atomization tank more to the one widthwise end of the atomization tank than is the first connection part, and more to the other widthwise end of the atomization tank than is the edge part.
Xie teaches a spraying apparatus comprising a blow port, wherein the blow port (at fan 6, see Fig. 3) is arranged along the top panel of the atomization tank (Fig. 3) more to the one widthwise end of the atomization tank than the first connection part of the baffle (connection part of baffle 12 is arranged further away to right side of atomization tank as seen in Fig. 3), and more to the other widthwise end of the atomization tank than the edge part of the baffle (open end of baffle 12 is arranged further away to left side of atomization tank as seen in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baffle of Murray, by incorporating the shape and arrangement of the baffle as taught by Xie, since the vertical angle of the baffle would improve atomization and efficacy (Par. [0028]).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Murray as modified by Xie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Murray further discloses the send-out port (76) is provided in the top panel of the atomization tank (Fig. 6).
With regard to claims 4 and 5, , the device of Murray as modified by Xie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since the device of Murray as modified by Xie discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Murray as modified by Xie will inherently perform all the method steps of claims 4 and 5.
Conclusion
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