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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 20, 24 and 35 have been amended, claim 36remains withdrawn, and claims 20-25 and 27-35 remain under consideration in the application.
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 “electric field generator” introduced into claim 24 by the amendment filed on 01/16/2026 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note the electric field generator is mentioned once in the specification page 7, lines 20-26 without
designated label or illustration in the drawings.
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 Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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.
Claim 20, lines 4-5 recites the limitation “gas flow generating device ----- for generating and directing the gas flow”, this limitation has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, eventhough it does not use the word “means” (or “step”). Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, claim 20 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure
described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents
thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 20-23, and 28-35 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.
Claim 20 recites “gas flow generating device ----- for generating and directing the gas flow” in lines 4-5. The structure for generating and directing the gas flow lacks support in the written description; that is, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand applicant/inventor as having possession of the claimed gas flow generating
device at the time of filing of the invention, particularly, since the specific or the art
recognized structure has not been specified in the specification and/or any
definition given in the specification as to what constitutes the “gas flow generating
device”.
9. 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.
10. Claims 20-25 and 27-35 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 20 limitation “gas flow generating device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the function of for generating and directing the gas flow as claimed and/or clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite in that it is unclear as to what structure constitutes the claimed “gas flow generating device”. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable.
Claim 20 as instantly amended recites the limitation "the flow generating device provided at the reservoir" in lines 4-5. It is unclear as to what the phrase “provided at” means or in other words what is the position of the “flow generating device” with respect to the reservoir in the claimed nozzle assembly. Particularly since the specification does not specifically show the structure that constitutes “the gas flow generating device”; furthermore, none of the figures in the drawing shows the exact position of the “gas flow generating device” with respect to the reservoir. Therefore, the phrase “provided at the reservoir" is deemed vague, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "such as" recited in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 24 is indefinite in that it recites a new limitation “the nozzle further comprises a first electrode such as a metal piece and a device an electric field generator to apply an electric field between the first electrode and the molten metal”. It is noted that while the specification mentions the newly introduced electric field generator only once in the page 7, lines 20-26, the specification lacks a clear description as to how said electric field generator interacts with the claimed electrode to apply an electric field between the first electrode and the molten metal with a force per unit area for producing microdroplets of metal in the manner as set forth in claim 24 as instantly amended. The claim is therefore deemed incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, and such omission amounting to a gap between claimed structural features. Also see MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 20-23, 28, 29, 31, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US Patent No. 7,622,011).
Regarding claim 20, Inoue et al. teaches a nozzle assembly for producing microdroplets of metal with a maximum particle size of about 30-125 micron (see column 3, lines 50-55, column 3, lines 60-65 and column 5, line 65-column 6, line 3; therefore particle of that size meets the requirement of microparticle since the claimed microparticle is defines in the specification to have particle size in the range of 0.060 to 0.250 mm, or 60 to 250 microns), the nozzle comprising: a reservoir (i.e., crucible 1, see figure 1 and column 7, lines 6-50) for molten metal (5, see figure 1 and column 7, lines 10-18), a nozzle opening (see in figure 1, the composite nozzle structure (3 and 6) includes a molten metal flow nozzle portion nozzle 6 that includes an opening as required by the claim) for directing the molten metal in a flow direction out of the reservoir and a channel connecting (see in figure 1 the base of the crucible include a channel for molten metal flow into the nozzle 6) the reservoir with the nozzle opening (see figure 1), wherein the nozzle assembly further comprises a gas flow generating device (i.e. the assembly comprising the inert gas inlet passage (7) and the inert gas injection nozzle (8), see figure 1 and column 7, lines 6-50) for generating and directing the gas flow to the molten metal through at least one supply opening into the channel;
wherein the gas supply opening is located at the nozzle opening (see the gas supply
opening defined by the gas injection nozzle is an opening located in the inert gas
sprayer portion (3) of the composite nozzle structure (3 and 6), see figure 1 and column 7, lines 6-50); wherein the gas supply opening is located at the nozzle opening, wherein a force per unit area generated by the gas flow at the molten metal is larger than the surface tension of the molten metal (see figure 1, abstract, see column 3, lines 50-55, column 3, lines 60-65, column 5, line 65-column 6, line 3 and column 7, lines 6-50).
Inoue et al. fails to particularly teach a gas pressure in the range of 100 to 10000 mbar into the channel as the new limitation introduced into claim 20 requires. However, Inoue et al. system produces metal microparticle by a high-pressure-gas atomizing process by pre-pressurizing the inert gas flow to about 2 to 15 Mpa prior to directing the inert gas into the channel. It also should be pointed out that since there is no specialized or distinctive device recited in the claim connected to the claimed nozzle for supplying the gas at the claimed pressure range of 100 to 10000 mbar into the channel, said limitation is characterized as being drawn to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus. Furthermore, with reference to MPEP 2114. II. Which pertains to the manner of operating a claimed apparatus, similar to the instantly-claimed gas flow generation device and that taught by Inoue et al., the court held that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does; and also that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In this instant case, one of ordinary skill in that art the time the invention was made could have reasonably choose to direct the inert gas flow at any desired pressure to include the pressure ranged claimed by merely using the control device or the pressure indication gage of the pressurizing device of Inoue et al. (see Inoue et al., column 7, lines 19-32).
With respect to the instantly amendment requiring the gas flow generating device
to be provided at the reservoir for generating and directing the gas flow to the molten
metal through at least one gas flow channel meeting the channel at a respective supply opening.
It is noted that by providing the gas flow generating device at the reservoir, instead of the gas flow generating device (i.e. the inert gas inlet passage (7) and the inert gas injection nozzle (8) assembly, see figure 1 and column 7, lines 6-50) of Inoue et al. provided at the molten metal nozzle (6, see figure 1); only constitutes a rearrangement of parts. Furthermore, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. which pertains to the obviousness of rearrangement of parts similar to the instantly-claimed gas flow generating device and that taught by Inoue et al.; the court held that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device; particularly since the specification does not specifically describe or mention the structure that constitutes “the gas flow generating device”; furthermore, none of the figures in the drawing show the exact position of the “flow generating device” with respect to the reservoir.
Regarding claim 21, Inoue et al. in figure 1, shows an inert gas inlet passage (7) that is perpendicular to the molten metal flow direction in the channel and a gas injection nozzle (8) for directing the inert gas at an angle to the flow direction of the channel, hence the disclosure of Inoue et al. substantially reads on all aspects of the
claim and/or encompasses the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 22, Inoue et al. in figure 1, shows at least two gas injection
nozzle openings (7), around the circumference of the nozzle for directing inert gas onto
the molten metal exiting the nozzle outlet to form molten metal droplet, and therefore
substantially meets all aspects of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Inoue et al. teaches a gas flow device that directs inert gas flow to the molten metal through the gas supply opening located in the nozzle opening that comprises an inert gas, d since an inert gas encompassed at least the claimed argon, Helium, N2, Ar2, or combinations; the claim is met.
Regarding claims 28, 29 and 31, Inoue et al. in figure 1 also shows a nozzle assembly with a nozzle portion (6) with a cross-section of the channel in the flow direction of the molten metal that appears to be round shape, and the cross-section of the channel in a plane perpendicular to the flow direction of the molten metal being a circular, wherein the nozzle opening comprising a circular; thereby meeting substantially all aspects of the claims.
Regarding claim 33, Inoue et al. in figure 1, shows a reservoir (i.e., crucible 1) that comprises an inner shape, which is connected with the channel via a channel opening in the inner shape, wherein the inner shape of the reservoir is rounded at the channel opening such that the molten metal is guided to the nozzle opening.
Regarding claim 34, Inoue et al. a nozzle configured for producing metal droplets
of size ranging between 30 to 125 microns (see column 5, line 66-column 6, line 3) which lies within the claimed range or 0.010 to 500mm (which is equivalent to 10 to 500,000 microns) and therefore meets the claim. It should also be noted that the droplets made by the claimed nozzle constitutes an article made by the claimed nozzle or apparatus and as such not necessarily part of the claimed apparatus, furthermore it is
well settled that an apparatus claims cover what the device is, not what the device does.
Also see MPEP 2114. II.
Regarding claims 30 and 32, Inoue et al. in figure 1 shows a channel of the nozzle portion (6) that defines a length and a circular cross-section but fails to expressly teach the channel length as being in the range of 0.1 to 100 mm, and a circular nozzle opening being a diameter of 10 to 500 micron as claimed. Thus, Inoue et al. differs from the instant claims only in terms of the dimensions of these claimed features. However, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. which pertains to the obviousness of changes in dimensions similar to the instantly-claimed nozzle channel length and nozzle circular cross-section diameter and that taught by Inoue et al.; the court held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this instant case, since the target droplet size and the and droplet production throughput would be induced in the factors dictating dimensions of such claimed structure, selection of the most suitable dimensions to achieve said target goals would be obvious and or within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
13. Claims 24, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US Patent No. 7,622,011) as applied to claim 20 above and further in view of Mahoney et al. (US Patent No. 4,264,641).
Regarding claim 24, Inoue et al. fails to particularly teach a nozzle assembly for producing metal microdroplets using electrodispersion, wherein the nozzle assembly further comprises a first electrode such as a metal piece and a device an electric field generator to apply an electric field between the first electrode and the molten metal with a force per unit area generated by the electric field at the molten metal being larger than a surface tension of the molten metal, wherein the electric field generated between the first electrode and the molten metal has a field strength which lies in the range of 1 V/c to 1000 V/cm.
Mahoney et al. teaches a nozzle assemble (i.e., including a nozzle , see, figures 1 &2, and column 7, lines 19-67) for producing microdroplets of metal (see figures 1 &2, and abstract) using electrodispersion (i.e., electrodynamic spraying process, see abstract, and column 1, lines 40-48 and column 2, lines 10-67), the nozzle comprising a reservoir for molten metal (i.e., refractory molten metal reservoir 23, see figure 2 and column 8, lines 23-30), a nozzle opening for directing the molten metal in a flow direction out of the reservoir and a channel connecting the reservoir with the nozzle opening (see figure 2 shows a passage way for the flow of molten metal between the reservoir (23) and the nozzle 10), wherein the nozzle further comprises a first electrode (16, see figure 2 and column 7, line 38 – column 8, line 15) in a form of a metal piece and a device to apply an electric field between the first electrode and the molten metal with a force per unit area generated by the electric field at the molten metal being larger than a surface tension of the molten metal (see figure 2, abstract, column 2, lines 11-42 and column 8, lines 36-60).
Mahoney et al. fails to expressly teach an electric field generated between the first electrode and the molten metal having an electric field strength which lies in the range of 1 V/cm to 1000 V/cm; however; Mahoney et al. teaches a field strength that is at least 105 V/cm (see abstract and column 8, lines 34-50) and in addition teaches that the electric field strength selected is dictated by the target droplet size desired to be produced, and that the droplet size can be increased by decreasing the applied electric field strength (see column 2, lines 42-68). On the basis of these teachings of Mahoney et al., one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could readily and/or reasonably choose any desired electric field strength to include that been claimed that to yield the desired particle size, since the target particle size dictates the electric field strength to applied between the electrode and the molten metal for producing the metal microdroplets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Inoue et al. to use an electrodispersion in which an electric field generated between the first electrode and the molten metal using an electric field generator as exemplified by Mahoney et al., since using electrodispersion has the advantage and/or benefit in comparison with the other prior art means or techniques for providing a much more efficient means for obtaining uniform and finer size particles from a broader range of materials (see Mahoney et al., column 1, lines 49-53).
Regarding claim 25, Inoue et al. in view of Mahoney et al. teaches an electrode (16, see Mahoney et al., figure 1) with a cross-section that appears substantially trapezoidal and not essentially cuboid shape as claimed. However, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.IV.B. which pertains to the obviousness of changes in shape similar to the instantly-claimed electrode shape and that taught by Mahoney et al.; the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container 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. In this instant case the trapezoidal shape electrode as shown in figure 1 of Mahoney et al. is selected to matches the angular inclination of the tip of the heated shield 13 to avoid being obstructed by said heat shield.
Regarding 27, Inoue et al. in view of Mahoney et al. teaches an electric field that is known to be generated by a direct current (see Mahoney et al., column 1, lines 40-42).
13. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al.
(US Patent No. 7,622,011) as applied to claim 20 above and further in view of Spatz et al. (US Patent No. 10,987,728).
Regarding claim 35, Inoue et al. teaches a nozzle assembly for producing
microdroplets of metal having a maximum particle size of about 30-125 micron, comprising: a reservoir (i.e., crucible 1, see figure 1 and column 7, lines 6-50) for molten metal (5, see figure 1 and column 7, lines 10-18), a nozzle opening (see in figure 1, the composite nozzle structure (3 and 6) including a molten metal flow nozzle portion nozzle (6) that includes an opening ) for directing the molten metal in a flow direction out of the reservoir; a gas flow generating device for generating and directing the gas towards the molten metal through at least one supply opening into the channel, wherein the gas supply opening is located at the nozzle opening, wherein a force per unit area generated by the gas flow at the molten metal is larger than the surface tension of the molten metal (see figure 1, abstract, see column 3, lines 50-55, column 3, lines 60-65,
column 5, line 65-column 6, line 3 and column 7, lines 6-50).
Inoue et al. fails to teach a melt spinner for forming elongate metal fibers combined with a nozzle, that comprises a rotatable wheel with a circumferential surface, at least one rotating planar surface and collection container for collecting solidified fibers formed on the circumferential surface and the rotating planar surface of the rotatable wheel from the molten metal and separated from the rotatable wheel by forces generated by the rotation of the rotatable wheel.
Spatz et al. teaches a combination apparatus that comprises nozzle (N, see Spatz et al., figure 1, abstract, column 3, lines 7-35 and column 11, lines 4-35) and melt spinner that comprises a rotatable wheel (B, see Spatz et al., figure 1, column 3, lines 7-35 and column 11, lines 4-35) with a circumferential surface (S, see Spatz et al., figure 1, column 3, lines 7-35 and column 11, lines 4-35) and a container for collection solidified fibers formed from the molten metal on the circumferential surface (see Spatz et al., column 3, lines 7-35) and wherein the solidified fibers separate from the rotatable wheel by a centrifugal forces generated by the rotation of the rotatable wheel (see Spatz et al., abstract, column 4, lines 7-13 and column 11, lines 4-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Inoue et al. to combine the nozzle with a spinning device as exemplified by Spatz et al., and that would provide the added advantage of producing fibrous structures or fibers besides the droplets or microdroplets production.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive.
With respect to Inoue et al., Applicant’s principal argument is that Inoue fails to disclose, and in fact is completely silent about, the position of arrangement of the gas flow generating device.
Applicant’s position is not agreed with. In response, it is noted that by providing the gas flow generating device at the reservoir as recited instantly in claim 20, as against the gas flow generating device of Inoue et al. provided at the molten metal nozzle; only constitutes a rearrangement of parts. Furthermore, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. which pertains to the obviousness of rearrangement of parts similar to the instantly-claimed gas flow generating device and that taught by Inoue et al.; the court held that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device; particularly since the specification does not specifically describe or mention the structure that constitutes “the gas flow generating device”; furthermore, none of the figures in the drawing show the exact position of the “flow generating device” with respect to the reservoir.
With respect to Mahoney et al., no substantive argument was provided by
Applicant except that the independent claim 24, originally reject under 103(a) has now being written in dependent form to depend from the instantly amended claim 20. As presented in the rejections above, Inoue et al. in combination with Mahoney et al. teaches substantially all the structural features of the claim 24 as instantly amended, and therefore the claim is met.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759