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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08JUL2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08JUL2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant' s arguments, see p. 5, filed 08JUL2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the recitation of the heater and the projectile speed of the liquid overcomes the previous 35 USC 102 rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Guo. Guo teaches a heat exchanger as cited below which acts as a heat, thereby fulfilling the claim requirements. While Guo is noted to teach speeds of >343 m/s, Guo similarly explores the ability to alter a number of parameters to control droplet conditions and it would be reasonable to optimize said values.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108159807 A (Guo et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Guo teaches a production method for a high-speed nano mist [Summary of the Invention] for producing the high-speed nano mist which is a group of liquid droplets having a particle diameter of 1 nm to 10000 nm (disclosing a range of 10-60 nm, p. 2) and flying at a speed of at least 343 m/s (p. 2), and causing the high- speed nano mist to collide with a target object, the production device comprising:
a sealed container (4) configured to use water as the high-speed nano mist (p. 2) and to contain the water;
a gas supply source configured to supply a pressurized gas to the sealed container (p. 3 describing the formation of pressurized gas to eject water vapor);
a heater (18) configured to heat the water contained in the sealed container to a temperature at or below a boiling point of water (using gas at temperatures of 200-600°C, p. 1, which is capable of heating the water to below the boiling temperature of water at the cited 3.5-12 atm); and
a jet nozzle (9) (the nozzle being considered in the sealed container as it is the ejection point, similar to the layout shown in Instant Fig. 1) configured to eject water vapor from the water and the pressurized gas supplied to the sealed container, wherein the inside of the sealed container has an absolute pressure of 3.5 atm to 12 atm (p. 2 teachings a range of 0.1 – 1.0 MPa, corresponding to 1 – 10 atm).
While Guo teaches speeds of at least 343 m/s, Guo teaches control of particle size and count of nano-drop formation by adjusting flow parameters (“The Laval nozzle can control the number and particle size of nano-droplets generated by the condensation flow by adjusting the flow parameters of the inlet wet steam and the length of the supersonic expansion section”, p. 2).
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem (improving steam sterilization) and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the speed of droplets), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options (adjusting speed) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Finally, although Guo discloses a speed of 343 m/s (as opposed to the 50-300 m/s required by the claim), the claimed amount would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize particulate size and speed for creating the desired interactions which produce the desired cleaning effect (i.e., ensuring droplets are at high enough speed to interact as desired and taught by Guo).
Applicant's arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 8. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a group of liquid droplets having a particle diameter of 1 nm to 10000 nm and flying at a speed of 50 m/s to 300 m/s” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS KALIHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:00-05:00 MT.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/HANS KALIHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights