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 .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/11/20205 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 09/11/2025, are acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 10-11 and 13-15 are pending; claims 5-9, 12 and 16-18 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-11 and 13-15 are 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.
Upon further consideration, Examiner has determined that the amendments to the claims filed on 05/29/2025 introduced new matter by claiming formulas that were not disclosed in the originally filed specification:
Claim 1 was previously amended to disclose the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
52
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. However, this exact formula is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. As such this is considered new matter.
Claim 2 was previously amended to disclose the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
29
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. However, this exact formula is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. As such this is considered new matter.
Claim 3 was previously amended to disclose the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
24
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. However, this exact formula is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. As such this is considered new matter.
Claim 4 was previously amended to disclose the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
52
318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, this exact formula is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. As such this is considered new matter.
Claim 10 was previously amended to disclose the formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
62
345
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, this exact formula is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. As such this is considered new matter.
Claim 11 was previously amended to disclose the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
51
327
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. However, this exact formula is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. As such this is considered new matter.
Claim 13 was previously amended to disclose the formula:
PNG
media_image7.png
50
321
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, this exact formula is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. As such this is considered new matter.
Claim 14 was previously amended to disclose the formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
53
380
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, this exact formula is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. As such this is considered new matter.
Claim 15 was previously amended to disclose the formula:
PNG
media_image9.png
50
353
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, this exact formula is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. As such this is considered new matter.
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 1-4, 10-11 and 13-15 are 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 1 discloses a droplet jet device comprising: a jet nozzle, a pressurizing liquid supplier, a controller (to control the pressurizing liquid supplier) “wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
52
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in which N is a number of the nozzle holes, r [m] is a diameter of the nozzle hole, and L [m] is a contour length of a cross-sectional surface of the flow channel, and the diameter of the nozzle hole is no smaller than 1 µm and no larger than 1 mm.” It is unclear what how the claimed formula relates to the claimed invention. That is, the claim is silent as to how the formula is used or what its purpose is. The claim merely states “wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
52
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” but does not disclose what the formular is for. Is the formula stating the required parameters for the geometry of the nozzle hole and flow channel in order to the sprayer to work as intended? If so, the claim should read as: “wherein the droplet jet device has a configuration/geometry that is within
PNG
media_image1.png
52
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…” Examiner asserts that the claim needs to have specificity other than just citing a formula with no explanation as to what it is for.
Claims 2-4 also disclose formulas without explanation of their relevance of what they are for. For the same reason as claim 1, these claims are also indefinite.
Claim 10 discloses a droplet jet device comprising: a jet nozzle, a pressurizing liquid supplier, a controller (to control the pressurizing liquid supplier) “wherein
PNG
media_image10.png
57
354
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in which N is a number of the nozzle holes, r [m] is a diameter of the nozzle hole, and L [m] is a contour length of a cross-sectional surface of the flow channel, and the diameter of the nozzle hole is no smaller than 1 µm and no larger than 1 mm.” It is unclear what how the claimed formula relates to the claimed invention. That is, the claim is silent as to how the formula is used or what its purpose is. The claim merely states “wherein
PNG
media_image10.png
57
354
media_image10.png
Greyscale
” but does not disclose what the formular is for. Is the formula stating the required parameters for the geometry of the nozzle hole and flow channel in order to the sprayer to work as intended? If so, the claim should read as: “wherein the droplet jet device has a configuration/geometry that is within
PNG
media_image10.png
57
354
media_image10.png
Greyscale
…” Examiner asserts that the claim needs to have specificity other than just citing a formula with no explanation as to what it is for.
Claims 11 and 13 also disclose formulas without explanation of their relevance of what they are for. For the same reason as claim 10, these claims are also indefinite.
Claim 14 discloses a droplet jet device comprising: a jet nozzle, a pressurizing liquid supplier, a controller (to control the pressurizing liquid supplier) “wherein
PNG
media_image11.png
55
381
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in which, N is a number of the nozzle holes, r is a diameter of the nozzle hole, a is a length of a first side of the cross-sectional shape of the flow channel, and b is a length of a second side of the cross-sectional shape of the flow channel which intersects with the first side and the diameter of the nozzle hole is no smaller than 1 µm and no larger than 1 mm.” It is unclear what how the claimed formula relates to the claimed invention. That is, the claim is silent as to how the formula is used or what its purpose is. The claim merely states “wherein
PNG
media_image11.png
55
381
media_image11.png
Greyscale
” but does not disclose what the formular is for. Is the formula stating the required parameters for the geometry of the nozzle hole and flow channel in order to the sprayer to work as intended? If so, the claim should read as: “wherein the droplet jet device has a configuration/geometry that is within
PNG
media_image11.png
55
381
media_image11.png
Greyscale
…” Examiner asserts that the claim needs to have specificity other than just citing a formula with no explanation as to what it is for.
Claims 15 also discloses a formula without explanation of their relevance of what they are for. For the same reason as claim 14, this claim is also indefinite.
Claims 14 and 15 are also indefinite because they disclose a diameter or the nozzle hole “r”, a length of a first side of the cross-sectional shape “a”, and a length of the second side of the cross-sectional shape “b”, but they do not disclose what unit of measurement these are in, which is critical in order for the formulas of these claims to make sense. It is not known if the diameter or the lengths are measured in inches, cm, mm, km, miles, etc. This renders these claims highly indefinite. For examination purposes, these dimensions will be considered in meters (m), as disclosed in other claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 10, 11 and 13 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seto et al (U.S. 2010/0111708).
Regarding claim 1, Seto teaches a droplet jet device (1) configured to form a liquid into droplets to jet the droplets (as disclosed in Par 0021), the droplet jet device comprising:
a jet nozzle (95) having at least one nozzle hole (97) and spraying the liquid from the nozzle hole in a continuous flow state (Par 0103 discloses continuous ejection of the liquid);
a pressurizing liquid supplier (defined by 30 which supplies the liquid to the nozzle at high pressure – Par 0063) having a flow channel (88) through which the liquid in a laminar flow state (Seto teaches a device with all the claimed structure, furthermore Par 0078 discloses the flow channel having a minute diameter of 0.3 mm, as such the flow is the same as claimed, i.e. laminar) circulates (Examiner is interpreting “circulates” in view of Applicant’s specification, which implies the fluid flowing through, it does not imply recirculation or looping of any sort; as seen in the figures of Seto, the fluid flows through the flow channel 88) and pressurizing the liquid in the flow channel to feed the liquid to the jet nozzle (as disclosed in Par 0063); and
a controller (100) configured to control an operation of the pressurizing liquid supplier to make the liquid sprayed from the nozzle hole in a state of being fragmented into droplets from the continuous flow (as disclosed in Par 0086 and Fig 3, the controller controls the pressurizing liquid supplier; Par 0021 discloses the droplets ejected as pulse-like droplets, i.e. fragmented), wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
52
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in which N is a number of the nozzle holes (Seto teaches a single nozzle hole: N=1), r [m] is a diameter of the nozzle hole (Par 0078 discloses the nozzle hole diameter being from 0.1-0.2 mm; taking the diameter as 0.1 mm: r=0.0001 m), and L [m] is a contour length of a cross-sectional surface of the flow channel (Par 0078 discloses the flow channel has a diameter of 0.3 mm; therefore its contour length, i.e. circumference is 0.942 mm, which in meters is L=0.000942 m), (plugging in N=1, r=0.0001 and L=0.000942 into the formula above: 0.188 < 8.87x105≤3.19x107, which satisfies the range of the formula) and
the diameter of the nozzle hole is no smaller than 1 µm and no larger than 1 mm (Par 0078 discloses the nozzle hole diameter being 0.1 mm).
Regarding claim 2, Seto teaches the droplet jet device according to Claim 1, wherein the diameter of the nozzle hole is no smaller than 100 µm and no larger than 1 mm (Par 0078 discloses the nozzle hole diameter being 0.1 mm), and
PNG
media_image12.png
29
266
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(plugging in N=1 and L=0.000942 into the formula above: 1.53x10-7<0.000942<0.179, which satisfies the formula).
Regarding claim 3, Seto teaches the droplet jet device according to Claim 1, wherein the diameter of the nozzle hole is no smaller than 1 µm and no larger than 100 µm (Par 0078 discloses the nozzle hole diameter being 0.1 mm, which is 100 µm), and
PNG
media_image13.png
32
335
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(plugging in N=1 and L=0.000942 into the formula above: 4.34x10-7<0.000942<0.00565, which satisfies the formula).
Regarding claim 4, Seto teaches the droplet jet device according to claim 1, wherein
PNG
media_image14.png
57
322
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(plugging in N=1, r=0.0001 and L=0.000942 into the formula above: 3090<8.87x105≤3.19x107, which satisfies the range of the formula)
Regarding claim 10, Seto teaches a droplet jet device (1) configured to form a liquid into droplets to jet the droplets (as disclosed in Par 0021), the droplet jet device comprising:
a jet nozzle (95) having at least one nozzle hole (97) and spraying the liquid from the nozzle hole in a continuous flow state (Par 0103 discloses continuous ejection of the liquid);
a pressurizing liquid supplier (defined by 30 which supplies the liquid to the nozzle at high pressure – Par 0063) having a flow channel (88) through which the liquid circulates (Examiner is interpreting “circulates” in view of Applicant’s specification, which implies the fluid flowing through, it does not imply recirculation or looping of any sort; as seen in the figures of Seto, the fluid flows through the flow channel 88) and pressurizing the liquid in the flow channel to feed the liquid to the jet nozzle (as disclosed in Par 0063); and
a controller (100) configured to control an operation of the pressurizing liquid supplier to make the liquid sprayed from the nozzle hole in a state of being fragmented into droplets from the continuous flow (as disclosed in Par 0086 and Fig 3, the controller controls the pressurizing liquid supplier; Par 0021 discloses the droplets ejected as pulse-like droplets, i.e. fragmented),
wherein the flow channel has a circular cross-sectional shape (the flow channel has a diameter, as disclosed in Par 078, as such it has a circular cross-section).
PNG
media_image15.png
60
362
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in which N is a number of the nozzle holes (Seto teaches a single nozzle hole: N=1), r [m] is a diameter of the nozzle hole (Par 0078 discloses the nozzle hole diameter being from 0.1-0.2 mm; taking the diameter as 0.1 mm: r=0.0001 m), and R [m] is a diameter of the flow channel (Par 0078 discloses the flow channel has a diameter of 0.3 mm; as such R=0.0003m) (plugging in N=1, r=0.0001 and R=0.0003 into the formula above: 0.0190<9x104<8.10x105, which satisfies the range of the formula) and
the diameter of the nozzle hole is no smaller than 1 µm and no larger than 1 mm (Par 0078 discloses the nozzle hole diameter being 0.1 mm).
Regarding claim 11, Seto teaches the droplet jet device according to claim 10, wherein
PNG
media_image16.png
55
325
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(plugging in N=1, r=0.0001 and R=0.0003 into the formula above: 3.13x102<9x104<8.10x105, which satisfies the range of the formula)
Regarding claim 13, Seto teaches the droplet jet device according to Claim 10, wherein when the diameter of the nozzle hole is no smaller than 1 µm and no larger than 100 µm (Par 0078 discloses the nozzle hole diameter being 0.1 mm, which is 100 µm),
PNG
media_image17.png
52
319
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(plugging in N=1, r=0.0001 and R=0.0003 into the formula above: 3.09x103≤9x104<8.10x105, which satisfies the range of the formula)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 14 and 15 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto et al (U.S. 2010/0111708) in view of Seto et al (U.S. 2012/0181352); hereafter referred to as “Seto 352”.
Regarding claim 14, Seto teaches a droplet jet device (1) configured to form a liquid into droplets to jet the droplets (as disclosed in Par 0021), the droplet jet device comprising:
a jet nozzle (95) having at least one nozzle hole (97) and spraying the liquid from the nozzle hole in a continuous flow state (Par 0103 discloses continuous ejection of the liquid);
a pressurizing liquid supplier (defined by 30 which supplies the liquid to the nozzle at high pressure – Par 0063) having a flow channel (88) through which the liquid circulates (Examiner is interpreting “circulates” in view of Applicant’s specification, which implies the fluid flowing through, it does not imply recirculation or looping of any sort; as seen in the figures of Seto, the fluid flows through the flow channel 88) and pressurizing the liquid in the flow channel to feed the liquid to the jet nozzle (as disclosed in Par 0063); and
a controller (100) configured to control an operation of the pressurizing liquid supplier to make the liquid sprayed from the nozzle hole in a state of being fragmented into droplets from the continuous flow (as disclosed in Par 0086 and Fig 3, the controller controls the pressurizing liquid supplier; Par 0021 discloses the droplets ejected as pulse-like droplets, i.e. fragmented); and the diameter of the nozzle hole is no smaller than 1 µm and no larger than 1 mm (Par 0078 discloses the nozzle hole diameter being 0.1 mm).
However, Seto does not teach the flow channel having a rectangular cross-sectional shape.
Seto 352 teaches a droplet jet device (10) wherein a flow channel (120) has a square shape (as disclosed in Par 0088), wherein a square is a type of rectangle.
It would have been an obvious matter to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable shape for the flow channel, including a rectangular shape as taught by Seto 352, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, selecting any shape for the flow channel involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Dailey: the court found that shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). In the present case, Doak discloses all the general structure of the claim, including recognizing that cross-sections can be squared, i.e. rectangular, as disclosed in Par 0052; therefore, it would be obvious to select any cross-section for the device to function as desired. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the flow channel with a rectangular cross-section.
In combination, Seto teaches the device in which, N is a number of the nozzle holes (single nozzle hole: N=1), r is a diameter of the nozzle hole (Par 0078 of Seto discloses the nozzle hole diameter being from 0.1-0.2 mm; taking the diameter as 0.1 mm: r=0.0001 m), (Par 0078 of Seto discloses the flow channel has a diameter of 0.3 mm; which is a circumference of 0.942 mm; as modified by Seto 352 a square perimeter of 0.942 mm equals to each side being 0.2355 mm, which is 0.0002355) a is a length of a first side of the cross-sectional shape of the flow channel (a=0.0002355 m), and b is a length of a second side of the cross-sectional shape of the flow channel which intersects with the first side (b=0.002355 m).
PNG
media_image18.png
54
387
media_image18.png
Greyscale
(plugging the values of N=1, r=0.0001, a=0.0002355, and b=0.002355 into the formula above: 4.69x10-2<2.22x105<1.62x106, which satisfies the formula).
Regarding claim 15, Seto and Seto 352 teach the droplet jet device according to Claim 14, wherein
PNG
media_image19.png
50
355
media_image19.png
Greyscale
(plugging the values of N=1, r=0.0001, a=0.0002355, and b=0.002355 into the formula above7.73x102<2.22x105<1.62x106, which satisfies the formula).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 10-11 and 13-15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments filed on 09/11/2025 have resulted in the new grounds of rejection found above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752