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
Claim 1 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), as set forth in the paragraphs below. The election requirement between the various species of the invention, as set forth in the Office action mailed on February 27, 2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim, in this case amended, independent claim 1. Claims 4, 5, 8-20, 22-30, and 39-42, directed to various non-elected species of the invention are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim, in this case amended, independent claim 1. Claims 4, 5, 8-20, 22-30, and 39-42 have been rejoined and examined for patentability along with amended, independent claim 1. Claims 31-38, are also rejoined as it is assumed that applicant had intended to amend the dependency of those claims from now cancelled claim 3 to independent claim 1. However, claims 43-45, directed to a non-elected species of the invention remain withdrawn from consideration because they do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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, 4-42, 46, and 47 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.
In claim 1, lines 18 and 20, the phrase “discharged to the upper side” renders the claim vague and indefinite, since the phrase should apparently be replaced by --discharged from the upper side--, which would make more sense because the “outflow ports” are apparently arranged at the upper side of the fog dissipation device.
In claim 4, “the top edge” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 5, “the top edge” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 8, “the bottom width” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 9, “the bottom width edge” and “the bottom edge” both lack antecedent basis.
In claim 10, “the bottom width edge” and “the bottom edge” both lack antecedent basis.
In claim 11, “the included angle”, “the bevel edge”, and “the outflow side” all lack antecedent basis.
In claim 12, “the included angle”, “the bevel edge”, “the outflow side”, and “the horizontal plane” all lack antecedent basis.
In claim 13, it is unclear as to what applicant intends to claim with respect to “the thickness” of the respective inflow ports.
In claim 15, it is unclear as to what applicant intends to claim with respect to “the thickness” of the respective transition portions. The claim should also clearly identify which inflow and outflow ports are being claimed.
In claims 18 and 19, “the first connection portion” and “the second connection portion” should apparently be made plural to be in agreement with the language of claim 17 from which they depend.
In claim 22, “the bottom width” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 23, line 3, “the first flow structure” should apparently be replaced by --the first flow guide structure--, to be in agreement with the language of claim 22, from which claim 23 depends.
In claim 24, lines 3 and 7, “the rib spacing” lacks antecedent basis, and on lines 4 and 8, “the edge” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 25, lines 8-10, “the tips” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 28, last line, “the bottom ends” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 29, lines 2 and 4, “the upper end” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 30, “the first flow guide chambers” and “the second flow guide chambers” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 31 depends from cancelled claim 3. Also, in claim 31, “the edge” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 32, applicant should replace the “can be” phrase with positive structural language.
Claim 33 depends from cancelled claim 3.
Claim 36 depends from cancelled claim 3. Also, in claim 36, “the bottom width” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 37 depends from cancelled claim 3.
In claim 39, “the fog dissipation devices” lacks antecedent basis, since claim 1 is directed to a single dissipation device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-42, 46, and 47 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest the fog dissipation device as set forth by amended, independent claim 1, including the specific structure as set forth by the last five lines of text added to claim 1 by the amendment filed on November 10, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17 and 18 of the Remarks section of the amendment, filed November 10, 2025, with respect to the prior art rejections based upon KR ‘351 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
The rejections of the claims in this Office action are all based upon 112(b) issues within the claims that have been rejoined due to the allowable subject matter as now presented in independent claim 1. All rejections herein were necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims as filed on November 10, 2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/2-21-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776