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Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 16 September 2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 2 requires that a distance from the ejection end of the aerosol transport path to a base material be 100 mm (although this recited an intended use, not given significant patentable weight) and Claim 1, from which Claim 2 depends requires that a flow path cross-section at the ejection end of the aerosol transport path has an area of 10 mm2 or more. Claim 3 recites that a value obtained by dividing the area A of the flow path cross-section at the ejection end (i.e. A>=10 mm2 according to Claim 1) by a square of a distance D between the ejection end and the base material (i.e. D<=100 mm [Wingdings font/0xE0] D2 <=10,000 according to Claim 2) necessarily yields a value V that is equal to 0.001 or more V=A/D2, or 10/10000, or 0.001 at A=10 and D=100; as A increases OR D decreases, V is necessarily >= 0.001. Therefore, Claim 2 and Claim 3 recite the identical limitation using different words.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso et al. (JP2005-089826A) in view of Yoshida et al. (JP 2008184647A).
Regarding Claim 1, Aso et al. (JP’826) teach a film forming apparatus for forming a film on a base material, comprising: an aerosol generating section 140 capable of generating an aerosol by dispersing a ceramic raw material powder in a gas [0019], connected to an aerosol transport path (pipe 200 and/ or lower section of nozzle that connects to pipe 200) [0020], and capable of feeding the generated aerosol to the aerosol transport path, the aerosol transport path capable of ejecting the aerosol from an ejection end (nozzle 150) toward the base material 180 [0020], and a processing chamber 110 with an inner space in which at least a portion of the aerosol transport path on a side of the ejection end and the base material are arranged (Figs. 1-5). JP’826 fails to teach that a flow path cross-section at the ejection end of the aerosol transport path has a substantially circular shape with an area of 10 mm2 or that the shape of the flow path cross-section at the processing chamber internal transport section is the same as the shape of the flow path cross-section at the ejection end.
Yoshida et al. (JP’647) is analogous art in the field of spraying aerosols, including ceramics, for aerosol deposition [0004, 0030] and suggests that a flow path cross-section at the ejection end of the aerosol transport path has a substantially circular shape (shape with an inner diameter) with an area of 12.56 mm2: (4 mm)2/4*Pi =12.57 mm2 [0021]. Additionally, since the nozzle is straight (Fig. 1; [0021]), a flow path cross-section of the aerosol transport path at a processing chamber internal transport section located in the processing chamber (e.g. lower part of the straight nozzle) also has a substantially circular shape with the same area [0021]. Moreover, piping is conventionally circular. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of JP’647 wherein a flow path cross-section at the ejection end of the aerosol transport path and a flow path cross-section of the aerosol transport path at a processing chamber internal transport section located in the processing chamber have a substantially circular shape (shape with an inner diameter) with an area of 12.56 mm2: (4 mm)2/4*Pi =12.57 mm2 and wherein the shape of the flow path cross-section at the processing chamber internal section is the same as the shape (substantially circular) of the flow path cross-section at the ejection end [0021,0025], because JP’647 is analogous art, which teaches a similar apparatus and suggests that an analogous flow path cross-section at an ejection end of a straight nozzle suitably has a substantially circular shape (shape with an inner diameter) with an area of 12.56 mm2 and pipes and pipe fittings conventionally have a circular shape.
Regarding Claims 2-3, the apparatus of JP’826 is capable of spraying on a base material 100 mm or less away from the ejection end of the aerosol transport path. The intended use is not given significant patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. Also, JP’647 suggests a distance of 5 mm [0020]. In addition, it would have been obvious to optimize the distance between a base material and the ejection end in order to deposit the spray over a desired area at an adequate velocity. Claim 2 requires that a distance from the ejection end of the aerosol transport path to a base material be 100 mm (although this recited an intended use, not given significant patentable weight) and Claim 1, from which Claim 2 depends requires that a flow path cross-section at the ejection end of the aerosol transport path has an area of 10 mm2 or more. Claim 3 recites that a value obtained by dividing the area A of the flow path cross-section at the ejection end (i.e. A>=10 mm2 according to Claim 1) by a square of a distance D between the ejection end and the base material (i.e. D<=100 mm [Wingdings font/0xE0] D2 <=10,000 according to Claim 2) necessarily yields a value V that is equal to 0.001 or more V=A/D2, or 10/10000, or 0.001 at A=10 and D=100; as A increases OR D decreases, V is necessarily >= 0.001. Therefore, Claim 2 and Claim 3 recite the identical limitation using different words.
Regarding Claim 6, JP’826 fails to teach the recited range of pressure. JP’647 suggests a vacuum of 600 Pa and 300 Pa (0.6 and 0.3 kPa) [0050]. In addition, JP’647 provides evidence that pressure is a result-effective variable, known in the prior art to affect mechanical and electrical properties of a deposited structure [0045]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of JP’826 in view of JP’647 to be capable of the pressure or vacuum in a processing chamber, because JP’647 suggests these pressures/ vacuum for deposition and suggests that one would optimize pressures to within the recited range to impart desirable mechanical and electrical properties to a deposited structure.
Regarding Claim 8, JP’826 teaches an apparatus capable of spraying ceramic raw material [0002,0004], but fails to teach a density of particles ceramic raw material powder is 4.0 g/cm3 or more. The intended use density is not given significant patentable weight. However, it is considered obvious to spray an aerosol with the recited density in order to deposit a ceramic coating at an adequate rate.
Regarding Claim 9, the film forming apparatus of the combination of references is capable of depositing a ceramic raw material powder which is stabilized zirconia. The intended use is given little significant patentable weight for the claimed apparatus, capable of performing the intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 29 June 2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 1 has been fully considered and overcomes the previous objection. The objection to Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3,6,8, and 9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Joo fails to teach an aerosol generating section (Remarks, p. 6), Examiner agrees. JP’647 does teach an aerosol generating section; however, Aso et al. (JP2005-089826A) is considered to be prior art that is closer than Joo as a primary reference in view of the amendment to the claims.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Yoshida differs from Joo in its disclosure about conveying an aerosol generated by an aerosol generator to a nozzle through an aerosol transport path (Remarks, p. 6), Examiner agrees.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights