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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The Response, amendments and arguments, filed 6/16/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-16, 18-19 and 21-23 are pending. Amendments overcome objections to the claims and specification. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections in previous action have been fully considered:
On pages 3-4 and 5-8 of Remarks Applicant is arguing :
Tirel teaches free jet and Kowalewski‘s jet is not a free jet, therefore, the method produces error for Tirel because calculations would not be based on free jet,
there is no guidance and motivation how to adapt these changes to have reasonable expectation of success,
modifying free jet of Tirel to a disturbed jet is hindsight,
Tirel teaches against using a free jet and the method fails if Tirel replace it with not free jet,
modifications are unpredicted and unpredicted chance of success,
Kowalewski does not provide any motivation to modify Tirel.
Response:
the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Also:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
And finally:
it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case: Tirel's objective is to establish a method for determining rheological parameters. Tirel relies on:
ejecting a liquid jet,
imaging the jet,
image processing,
extracting geometric data,
determining rheological properties.
However, Tirel does not specify a particular way to generate a repeatable disturbance in the jet. This is What Kowalewski contributes: Kowalewski is concerned with producing a stable, reproducible jet breakup. Kowalewski teaches:
pressurized reservoir,
piezoelectric actuator,
periodic voltage and frequency,
disturbance of the jet,
synchronized stroboscopic imaging,
acquisition of repeatable images.
Kowalewski’s purpose is not rheometry, but obtaining controlled and reproducible jet behavior. Tirel relies on a liquid jet that exits a nozzle and propagates freely through the surrounding air so that its morphology can be imaged and analyzed to determine rheological parameters. The proposed incorporation of Kowalewski's pressurized reservoir and piezoelectric stimulation merely changes how the disturbance that develops in the free jet is initiated and controlled. After leaving the nozzle, the jet still propagates freely, and its morphology is still imaged and analyzed using Tirel's image-processing methodology. Accordingly, the modification does not alter Tirel's fundamental principle of operation, which is to determine rheological parameters by analyzing the morphology of a freely propagating jet. In Tirel, "free jet" means and broadly is interpreted the jet is not confined after exiting the nozzle. In Kowalewski, the jet is also not confined after exiting the nozzle. It travels through air before breaking into droplets. The difference is that its breakup is periodically excited by a piezoelectric actuator. So the distinction is how the instability is initiated, not whether the jet is free after it leaves the nozzle. Examiner holds/emphasize that Tirel already depends on capillary instability to create observable morphology. Kowalewski simply controls the timing and repeatability of that instability. The jet remains a free liquid jet suitable for optical observation. Why a POSITA could combine them, the rationale is : “ to improve the repeatability and controllability of the jet morphology being imaged, to produce periodic and reproducible jet breakup for more consistent image acquisition and analysis.” That rationale comes directly from what Kowalewski does. This does not change Tirel's principle of operation: in other words:
because Tirel is fundamentally an imaging-and-analysis method, Tirel is teaching observing a jet; extracting geometry ; computing rheological parameters. Replacing the way the disturbance is generated (from natural capillary instability) with (controlled piezoelectric excitation) does not eliminate those later steps. i.e., the image analysis still works; the rheological calculations still work, the jet is still photographed; the morphology is still analyzed. So the overall purpose remains intact. Kowalewski exactly teaches: piezoelectric excitation produces controlled, periodic jet breakup suitable for high-quality synchronized imaging. Therefore, one possible rationale is to modify Tirel's jet generation system using the piezoelectrically stimulated continuous jet arrangement of Kowalewski because Kowalewski teaches that periodic piezoelectric excitation produces a stable and reproducible jet breakup synchronized with stroboscopic imaging, thereby improving repeatability and consistency of image acquisition for subsequent image analysis. Kowalewski is relied upon for the apparatus and imaging methodology, while relying on Tirel is relied upon for the rheological analysis. Finally : Tirel supplies the rheological determination and image analysis. Kowalewski supplies the controlled jet generation, piezoelectric stimulation, and synchronized stroboscopic imaging. The motivation is improving repeatability and controllability of jet formation and image acquisition, not changing Tirel into a different experiment. The proposed modification does not eliminate the characteristics of a free jet that Tirel relies upon.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
On pages 4-5 of Remarks Applicant is arguing Tirel does not teach periodically simulating, and there is no reasonable basis to rely on Tirel to teach periodically simulating its jet:
Response:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
Also:
one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
First of all: Tirel in section 3-1 of experimental work explicitly teaches a syringe-pump, a supplying tube and an injector and this is broadly interpreted as periodically simulating as POSITA can broadly interpret this system as a fluidic or physiological simulation device. Together, a syringe pump, tubing, and an injector form a highly effective setup to mimic and automate various dynamic processes in laboratory and medical environments. Secondly: Kowalewski teaches periodically stimulating, at amplitude [[A ]] (A) in Volts and frequency F=1/T (F=1/T), a piezoelectric actuator, so that the piezoelectric actuator disturbs the pressurized fluid in the ejection head, and Applicant has not provided any reason or argument on Kowalewski teaching this limitation.
On pages 3-4 and 8-10 of Remarks Applicant is arguing :Ramezanizadeh does not provide motivation on the contrary Ramezanizadeh is unpredictability not predictability and the motivation is hindsight.
Response:
In this case, First of all: the limitation that Ramezanizadeh has been used is “the determination of the rheological parameters being performed using a statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set a database containing morphologies of known fluid jets.“[emphasis added for the part that Ramezanizadeh is relied on]
Secondly: Supervised parametric machine learning methods rely on models previously parameterized by using a training database of known data; in other words, machine leaning method is relying on training set a database containing known data and these models previously parameterized by using as training set a database containing of known data. Ramezanizadeh is one of many published works to support it, and it is in the field of determining rheological parameters of a fluid. Examiner notes that regarding using machine learning that is automating a manual activity, the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 III (“Automating A Manual Activity”). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2114.IV, broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Finally: Examiner remind Applicant that the reason Examiner withdrawing 112 (a) and 112 (b) rejection for this subject matter ( in previous action) is that Applicant argued 1that the cited limitation directed to ML techniques and training models being obvious are persuasive and the 112 (a) and 112 (b) rejections are withdrawn. Nevertheless, in accordance with applicants arguments (pages 4-5, step g of claim 1 is obvious) and the examiners’ previous assertions (based on what the specification discloses to determination of the rheological parameters being performed using a statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set a database correlated to ML modeling and training algorithms), the limitation in question is broadly met by the prior art (Ramezanizadeh) teaching using ML techniques and training algorithms to determine rheological parameters. if Applicant believes that the limitation is essential to the claim, the previously 112 (a) issue would remain.
Page 11 of Remarks: as best understood, Applicant is arguing dependent claims 21-23 and is arguing that Tirel does not teach the limitations “wherein the determining g) of the rheological parameters of the fluid includes identifying the fluid from the dataset descriptive of the jet obtained in the acquiring f) by the statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set the database containing the morphologies of the known fluid jets.” and limitation “wherein the database includes, for each of a plurality of the known fluids at each of a plurality of amplitudes: - a length of the jet before break, - a surface of the jet before break, - a volume of the jet before break, - for a plurality of droplets, a length, maximum height, volume and surface of the droplet.” And limitation “wherein in the ejecting c), the given morphology of the stabilized jet includes droplets having a droplet morphology affected by the disturbance caused by the piezoelectric actuator, in the obtaining d) and in the recording e), the fixed and illuminated image of the complete stabilized jet includes the droplets, and in the analyzing f), the dataset descriptive of the stabilized jet includes data descriptive of the droplet morphology.”
Response:
one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, the rejection is based on obviousness over the combination of Tirel in view of the prior art of record, NOT only Tirel. Claim 22 has allowable subject matter, therefore, the argument is moot. Claims 21 and 23 are not relying on Tirel for the limitation. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claims would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case: (1) as cited in this action the prior art (NOT only Tirel) included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) an ordinary skill in the art may want to distinguish between different features for a more accurate results. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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 1, 3-10, 15-16, 19, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tirel”2, (Tirel, Christophe, Marie-Charlotte Renoult, and Christophe Dumouchel. "Measurement of extensional properties during free jet breakup." Experiments in fluids 61 (published Jan. 2020): 1-14.) in view of “Kowalewski”, (Kowalewski ,Tomasz A. "On the separation of droplets from a liquid jet." Fluid dynamics research 17.3 (1996): 121) and Ramezanizadeh”, (Ramezanizadeh, Mahdi, et al. "A review on the utilized machine learning approaches for modeling the dynamic viscosity of nanofluids." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019)).
Claim 1
Tirel discloses:
A method (sections 2-5) of determining rheological parameters of a fluid (at least Abstract and e.g., table 2 results for measuring properties of relaxation times and the terminal extensional viscosities for viscoelastic fluids or dilute polymer solutions with different polymer concentration as cited in section 4.1), the method comprising:
a) introducing the fluid into a continuous-jet droplet generator (injector fig.4 section 3.1) comprising a tank (tank of syringe pump section 3.1: The injector is a cylindrical body (5mm internal diameter and 85 mm length) ended by a nozzle) maintained at a given pressure p0 (section 3.1: syringe pump, supplying tube and injector are installed at the same height to limit pressure changes) using a pressurizing device (syringe pump) and communicating via an inlet orifice with an ejection head (ejection head via nozzle as disclosed in section 3.1),
b) periodically stimulating (using syringe),
c) ejecting, via an outlet nozzle and out of the ejection head (section 3.1: The nozzle is a thin cylindrical plate with a cylindrical hole in its center), the fluid disturbed, which takes the form of a jet (e.g., section 3.1: vertical free liquid jets is presented in z-axis in Fig. 4);
d) obtaining, using a stroboscope (laser/camera and also in section 1 discloses using known technique stroboscopic visualization allows reconstituting temporal evolution from which the relaxation time was determined) at a given instant t (section 3.1: The duration of the light pulse is chosen equal to 20 ns to freeze the jet on the image), a fixed and illuminated image of the complete jet (moving object is frozen when its displacement during the light exposure is
lower than the image resolution e.g., section 3.1/figs. 5-6);
e) recording one or more photographs of all or part of the fixed and illuminated image of the complete jet (e.g., sections 3.2/3.3 besides citations above) using a camera or a photographic device (fig.4);
f) analyzing (section 3.3/3.4) the photograph or photographs from the recording to extract therefrom a dataset descriptive of the jet (section 3.4, e.g., scale distribution see also section 2 for considering jet as thinning cylinder fig.1);
g) determining the rheological parameters of the fluid for a given ejection nozzle (for different nozzle dimensions, e.g., section 3.4,4.3/figs.8-9/ tables 1-2), the determination of the rheological parameters being performed using a statistical method (e.g., Abstract: This analysis uses a statistical multi-scale description tool whose principle is explained for an ensemble of thinning cylinders/ section 5: a statistical and multi-scale method for measuring the extensional properties of viscoelastic solutions during free jet atomization has been presented) and morphologies of fluid jets (morphologies of jets e.g., shown in fig.6 with the background and definitions of geometry jet given in section I and analyzed in sections 3.4 and 4.3).
Tirel does not specifically disclose:
a) a temperature of which is controlled
b) periodically stimulating, at amplitude ( A) in Volts and frequency (F=1/T), a piezoelectric actuator, so that the piezoelectric actuator disturbs the pressurized fluid in the ejection head;
c) fluid disturbed by the periodic stimulating, wherein the disturbed fluid takes the form of a stabilized jet having a given morphology affected by a disturbance caused by the piezoelectric actuator;
g) for a given stimulation amplitude Ai and pressure pi, i being a natural integer at least equal to 2, the determination of the rheological parameters being performed using a statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set a database containing morphologies of known fluid jets. (though as cited above Tirel teaches determining the rheological parameters of the fluid for a given ejection nozzle, and the determination of the rheological parameters being performed using a statistical method previously parameterized, and Tirel also teaches morphologies of fluid jets.)
In the similar field of endeavor, Kowalewski in figs.1-10 teaches:
A method of determining droplet separation from a liquid jet in terms of rheological parameters of a fluid (e.g., Abstract:), the method comprising:
a) introducing the fluid into a continuous-jet droplet generator comprising a tank ( see fig.1 and disclosure in 2nd section Experiments and 2.1 description of apparatus starting page 124: reservoir or pressurized container, generated jets shown in e.g., figs.2-3,9) maintained at a given pressure p0 (e.g., page 124 and also section 2.2 maintained in 100 Pa) using a pressurizing device and communicating via an inlet orifice with an ejection head (see e.g., section 2, disclosure on nozzle, nozzle’s interchangeable heads), a temperature of which is controlled (e.g., page 128, section 2.2);
b) periodically stimulating (e.g., section 2: one can obtain the periodic, perfectly
reproducible breakup of the jet), at amplitude (A) in Volts (e.g., page 124: resulting perturbations of the jet are proportional to the voltage applied to the transducer) and frequency (F=1/T) (e.g., page 124: modulation frequency close to the "natural" instability wavelength of the jet, also Table 2), a piezoelectric actuator (page 124: nozzle is modulated by a piezoceramic device), so that the piezoelectric actuator disturbs the pressurized fluid in the ejection head (page 124: pressure inside the plenum chamber of the nozzle is modulated by a piezoceramic device);
c) ejecting, via an outlet nozzle and out of the ejection head (see Experiments section on page 124), the fluid disturbed by the periodic stimulating (e.g., see Experiments section on page 124 obtain the periodic) , wherein the disturbed fluid takes the form of a stabilized jet (e.g., fig.2-3, and 9) having a given morphology affected by a disturbance caused by the piezoelectric actuator (e.g., see Experiments section on page 124);
d) obtaining, using a camera (e.g., fig.1) at a given instant t, a fixed and illuminated image of the complete stabilized jet (see e.g., section Results besides Experiments and images given in figs.2-9);
e) recording one or more photographs of all or part of the fixed and illuminated image of the complete stabilized jet using a camera or a photographic device (e.g., fig.3);
f) analyzing the photograph or photographs from the recording, to extract therefrom a dataset descriptive of the stabilized jet (e.g., fig.3 and sections 4-5);
g) determining the parameters of the fluid (e.g., table 2 on page 137) for a given ejection nozzle (see description of nozzle given under figure 3), and for a given stimulation amplitude (Ai ) and pressure (p0i) (as cited in e.g., Experiments section).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kowalewski’s system with Tirel’s system and method of determining rheological parameters of a fluid, to yield the predictable result of a combined system and method comprising a) a temperature of which is controlled b) periodically stimulating, at amplitude ( A) in Volts and frequency (F=1/T), a piezoelectric actuator, so that the piezoelectric actuator disturbs the pressurized fluid in the ejection head; c) fluid disturbed by the periodic stimulating, wherein the disturbed fluid takes the form of a stabilized jet having a given morphology affected by a disturbance caused by the piezoelectric actuator; as taught by Kowalewski. One of ordinary skill in the art knows droplet separation from a liquid jet depends on fluid viscosity and is correlated to it (e.g., Kowalaswki, Abstract) and would know continuous-jet droplet generator as a well-known technology for many applications and have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a well-known technology (droplet separation from a liquid jet taught by Kowalewski) for another (Tirel’s jet generator) to obtain a predictable results of determining rheological parameters of a fluid (as taught by Tirel), based on MPEP 2143 (D), courts have ruled that applying a known technique (droplet separation from a liquid jet taught by Kowalewski) to a known product and method (Tirel’s system) to yield predictable results of determining rheological parameters of a fluid is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). also It would have been obvious to modify Tirel's jet generation system using the piezoelectrically stimulated continuous jet arrangement of Kowalewski because Kowalewski teaches that periodic piezoelectric excitation produces a stable and reproducible jet breakup synchronized with stroboscopic imaging, thereby improving repeatability and consistency of image acquisition for subsequent image analysis. Besides: in the similar field of endeavor, Ramezanizadeh teaches determining the rheological parameters of the fluid, using a statistical method previously parameterized (viscosity of fluids using machine learning tool or artificial neural network e.g., Abstract) by using as training set a database (e.g., figs.1-4 and training dataset page 3 col.1 first para and section 2.4 considering different parameters affecting performance model) containing known fluid (known fluid info as input data in e.g., fig.5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ramezanizadeh’s training model for the modified Tirel with Kowalewski system of determining rheological parameters of continuous-jet droplet and morphologies of fluid jets and determination of the rheological parameters being performed using the modified Tirel’s statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set a database containing morphologies of known fluid jets as taught by Ramezanizadeh. One of ordinary skill in the art would know different training dataset approaches and their ability in modeling of different systems with high accuracy (Ramezanizadeh page 2 col.1 last two para) and have been motivated to make this modification in order to modeling of properties of fluids with high accuracy (Ramezanizadeh page 2 col.2 first para).
Claim 3
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Ramezanizadeh further teaches wherein the statistical method is based on a linear regression model (Section 2.2: Eq. 3 linear regression model (as a basic learning method) for the same reason and motivation as cited for claim 1.
Claim 4
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Ramezanizadeh further teaches wherein the statistical method is based on an artificial neural network model (ANN page 11 col.2) for the same reason and motivation as cited for claim 1.
Claim 5
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, Ramezanizadeh further teaches wherein the neural network model comprises at least one layer of neurons (e.g., Fig. 3-5) for the same reason and motivation as cited for claims 1 and 4.
Claim 6
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Tirel further teaches wherein the dataset comprises data on a geometrical form of all or part of the complete jet (geometry of the jet as modeled and explained at least in theoretical model section 2).
Claim 7
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Tirel further teaches wherein the dataset is based on parameters obtained from the geometrical form of all or part of the complete jet (geometry of the jet as modeled and explained at least in theoretical model section 2).
Claim 8
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Tirel further teaches wherein the database comprises information obtained with experimental fluid jets (experimental set up and measurements disclosed in sections 3-4 and fig.4).
Claim 9
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Kowalewski teaches piezoelectric simulator and stimulating the periodic stimulation of the piezoelectric simulator (e.g., section Experiments page 124), Tirel combined with Kowalewski for the same reason and motivation as cited above teaches wherein:
the periodic stimulation of the piezoelectric simulator, the ejection of the disturbed fluid, the obtaining of the illuminated image, the recording of the one more photographs, the analysis of the photograph or photographs (e.g., figs.2-9), and the determination of the rheological parameters are performed with two different stimulation amplitudesA1 and A2 (for different voltages).
Ramezanizadeh teaches different training models and algorithms and iterations (e.g.,figs.1-7), and in iterations works based on if the parameters of the fluid estimated for each of the stimulation amplitudes A1 and A2 do not converge, reiterating, determination of the rheological parameters with another amplitude A3 or several other stimulation amplitudes Ai, i being a natural integer at least equal to 3, until a convergence of the duly estimated rheological parameters of the fluid is obtained if the rheological parameters of the fluid estimated for each of the stimulation amplitudes A1 and A2 do not converge, reiterating, determination of the rheological parameters with another amplitude A3 or several other stimulation amplitudes Ai, i being a natural integer at least equal to 3, until a convergence of the duly estimated rheological parameters of the fluid is obtained. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ramezanizadeh’s iteration method for the modified Tirel‘s training models and if the rheological parameters of the fluid estimated for each of the stimulation amplitudes A1 and A2 do not converge, reiterating, the periodic stimulation of the piezoelectric simulator, the ejection of the disturbed fluid, the obtaining of the illuminated image, the recording of the one more photographs, the analysis of the photograph or photographs, and the determination of the rheological parameters with another amplitude A3 or several other stimulation amplitudes Ai, i being a natural integer at least equal to 3, until a convergence of the duly estimated rheological parameters of the fluid is obtained . One of ordinary skill in the art would know this a basic process of any simulation work and have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform any ML algorithm to produce reliable results. See MPEP 2143 (C).
Claim 10
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Kowalewski as cited in claim 1 teaches wherein:
the periodic stimulation of the piezoelectric simulator, the ejection of the disturbed fluid, the obtaining of the illuminated image, the recording of the one more photographs, the analysis of the photograph or photographs, and the determination of the rheological parameters are performed for two different pressures p01 and p02;
Ramezanizadeh teaches different training models and algorithms and iterations (e.g.,figs.1-7), and in iterations works based on if the rheological parameters of the fluid estimated for each of the pressures p01 and p02 do not converge, reiterating the determination of the rheological parameters with another pressure p3 or several other pressures p0i, i being a natural integer at least equal to 3, until a convergence of the duly estimated rheological parameters of the fluid is obtained. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ramezanizadeh’s iteration method for the modified Tirel‘s training models and if the rheological parameters of the fluid estimated for each of the pressures p01 and p02 do not converge, reiterating the periodic stimulation of the piezoelectric simulator, the ejection of the disturbed fluid, the obtaining of the illuminated image, the recording of the one more photographs, the analysis of the photograph or photographs, and the determination of the rheological parameters with another pressure p3 or several other pressures p0i, i being a natural integer at least equal to 3, until a convergence of the duly estimated rheological parameters of the fluid is obtained. One of ordinary skill in the art would know this a basic process of any simulation work and have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform any ML algorithm to produce reliable results. See MPEP 2143 (C).
Claim 15
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, Tirel further teaches wherein the dataset is based on parameters obtained from the geometrical form of all or part of the complete jet (geometry of the jet as modeled and explained at least in theoretical model section 2).
Claim 16
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, Tirel further teaches wherein the dataset is based on parameters obtained from the geometrical form of all or part of the complete jet (geometry of the jet as modeled and explained at least in theoretical model section 2).
Claim 19
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the dataset is based on parameters obtained from the geometrical form of all or part of the complete jet.
Claim 23
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Kowalewski teaches wherein in the ejecting c), the given morphology of the stabilized jet includes droplets having a droplet morphology affected by the disturbance caused by the piezoelectric actuator (as cited in e.g., Experimental section on page 124), in the obtaining d) and in the recording e), the fixed and illuminated image of the complete stabilized jet includes the droplets (e.g., figs.3-9), and in the analyzing f), the dataset descriptive of the stabilized jet includes data descriptive of the droplet morphology (e.g., figs.3-9) based on obviousness for the same reason and motivation as cited above3.
Claims 2, 11-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tirel”, (Tirel, Christophe, Marie-Charlotte Renoult, and Christophe Dumouchel. "Measurement of extensional properties during free jet breakup." Experiments in fluids 61 (published Jan. 2020): 1-14.) in view of “Kowalewski“, (Kowalewski, Tomasz A. "On the separation of droplets from a liquid jet." Fluid dynamics research 17.3 (1996): 121) and “Ramezanizadeh”, (Ramezanizadeh, Mahdi, et al. "A review on the utilized machine learning approaches for modeling the dynamic viscosity of nanofluids." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019)) and “LIU”, CN 103029440 A.
Claim 2
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, the combination does not teach wherein the piezoelectric actuator is immersed in the pressurized fluid in the ejection head.
In the similar field of endeavor, LIU in fig.1 teaches the piezoelectric actuator is immersed in the pressurized fluid in the ejection head (¶0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LIU’s of ‘s piezoelectric actuator immersed in the modified Tirel’s pressurized fluid in the ejection head as taught by LIU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a better stimulation.
Claim 11
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh LIU teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, Ramezanizadeh further teaches wherein the statistical method is based on a linear regression model (Section 2.2: Eq. 3 linear regression model (as a basic learning method) as one worker of art knows it as one of basic learning models.
Claim 12
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh, LIU teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, Ramezanizadeh further teaches wherein the statistical method is based on an artificial neural network model (ANN page 11 col.2) as one worker of art knows it as one of basic learning models.
Claim 13
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh, LIU teaches the method as claimed in claim 12, Ramezanizadeh further teaches wherein the neural network model comprises at least one layer of neurons (e.g., Fig. 3-5) as one worker of art knows it as one of learning models. See MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 14
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh, LIU teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, Tirel further teaches wherein the dataset is based on parameters obtained from the geometrical form of all or part of the complete jet (geometry of the jet as modeled and explained at least in theoretical model section 2).
Claim 18
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh LIU teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, Tirel further teaches wherein the dataset is based on parameters obtained from the geometrical form of all or part of the complete jet (geometry of the jet as modeled and explained at least in theoretical model section 2).
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tirel”, (Tirel, Christophe, Marie-Charlotte Renoult, and Christophe Dumouchel. "Measurement of extensional properties during free jet breakup." Experiments in fluids 61 (published Jan. 2020): 1-14.) in view of “Kowalewski (Kowalewski, Tomasz A. "On the separation of droplets from a liquid jet." Fluid dynamics research 17.3 (1996): 121), and “Ramezanizadeh”, (Ramezanizadeh, Mahdi, et al. "A review on the utilized machine learning approaches for modeling the dynamic viscosity of nanofluids." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019)) and Mitchell US20220381714A1.
Claim 21
Tirel in view of Kowalewski, Ramezanizadeh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, the modified Tirel as cited in claim 1 teaches wherein the determining g) of the rheological parameters of the fluid from the dataset descriptive of the jet obtained in the acquiring f) by the statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set the database containing the morphologies of the known fluid jets, but does not specifically teach determining g) includes identifying the fluid from the dataset descriptive of the jet obtained in the acquiring f) by the statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set the database containing the morphologies of the known fluid jets.
In the similar field of endeavor, Mitchell teaches wherein the determining of the rheological parameters of the fluid (e.g., ¶0057¶0065¶0111) includes identifying the fluid from the dataset descriptive by the statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set the database containing the known fluids (e.g.,¶0119 and claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ‘s for Mitchell’s ML models and training dataset for the modified Tirel‘s method and identifying the fluid from the dataset descriptive of the modified Tirel’s jet obtained in the acquiring f) by the statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set the database containing the morphologies of the known fluid jets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use the benefits of ML techniques to identify the fluids from their rheological parameters, furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (Mitchell’s ML techniques and training algorithms using dataset of rheological parameters) to a known product (the modified Tirel’s continuous-jet droplet generator) to yield predictable results (Mitchell’s identifying the fluid from the dataset descriptive by the statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set the database containing the known fluids), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
the prior art of record documents, individually or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a method of determining rheological parameters including identifying a fluid wherein the determining g) of the rheological parameters of the fluid includes identifying the fluid from the dataset descriptive of the jet obtained in the acquiring f) by the statistical method previously parameterized by using as training set the database containing the morphologies of the known fluid jets wherein the database includes, for each of a plurality of the known fluids at each of a plurality of amplitudes: - a length of the jet before break, - a surface of the jet before break, - a volume of the jet before break, - for a plurality of droplets, a length, maximum height, volume and surface of the droplet, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 See office action filed 07/30/25
2 Prior art of record
3 Furthermore, Examiner notes that just claiming data collection does not differentiate a claim limitation from prior art (see MPEP 2106).
Prosecution Insights