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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-20 are pending, and claim 1 is amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
restoring means in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the entire length" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eichhorn (U.S. 5,141,025).
With respect to claim 1, Eichhorn discloses atomizing nozzle arrangement comprising a housing (housing 2) having an inlet (inlet at 3), a valve seat (valve seat at 4), a valve element (11) interacting with the valve seat (see figure 1), restoring means (13) acting on the valve element, and an orifice (orifice going into 8), wherein the valve element cooperates with a guidance element (12) which is arranged in a bore (bore within 2 that 12 is within) of the housing and extends between the valve element and the restoring means (as shown in figure 1), and wherein a surface of the guidance element facing the bore (see figure 1, the surface of 12 faxing the pore 6) and extending along the entire length of the guidance element is without any abrupt steps (as shown in figure 1, having no steps but rather a sloping from a straight section into an angled section).
With respect to claim 2, Eichhorn discloses the guidance element is surrounded by a gap (gap about 12 facing 6), the gap extending between an inner wall of the bore and the guidance element and having a flow area (flow area about 12).
With respect to claim 3, Eichhorn discloses the flow area between the guidance element and the inner wall of the bore is largest at the end of the guidance element adjacent the valve element (as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 4, Eichhorn discloses the flow area is smallest at a position which is located in a halve of the guidance element remote from the valve element (as shown in figure 1, at the bottom area of 12, noted that when 12 is moved downwards, and 23 comes away from 4, the smallest gap is then between 12 and 6).
With respect to claim 5, Eichhorn discloses the guidance element comprises a cross section increasing in a direction away from the valve element (as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 6, Eichhorn discloses the valve element and the guidance element contact each other releasably (as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 13, Eichhorn discloses a cone element (cone 14) is arranged in the housing between the guidance element and the orifice (as shown in figure 1, between the right side of 12 and that of the orifice), wherein the restoring means are arranged between the cone element and the guidance element as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 14, Eichhorn discloses the restoring means are arranged in a recess in the guidance element and/or in a recess in the cone element (figure 1,being in a recess within the guidance element 12).
With respect to claim 15, Eichhorn discloses the restoring means are in form of a spring of a metal or plastic material or in form of an elastomer body (shown being a spring in figure 1, being made of known materials such as metals or plastics, further understood being an elastomer body as a spring is an elastomer body that deforms when pressed down).
With respect to claim 16, Eichhorn discloses the flow area is smallest at a position which is located in a halve of the guidance element remote from the valve element (as shown in figure 1, between 12 and 6 when 12 is moved down by the ball against the spring 13).
With respect to claims 17 and 19, Eichhorn discloses the guidance element comprises a cross section increasing in a direction away from the valve element (as shown in figure 1, being the outer cross section).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Chang (U.S. 7,464,885).
With respect to claim 1, Chang discloses an atomizing nozzle arrangement comprising a housing (figure 1, housing of 20) having an inlet (figure 3, inlet at 14), a valve seat (valve seat at 15), a valve element (51, taking as the element of only the cylindrical part of 51) interacting with the valve seat (15), restoring means acting on the valve element (spring 40), and an orifice (232), wherein the valve element cooperates with a guidance element (50) which is arranged in a bore (see figure 3, the bore formed by 13) of the housing and extends between the valve element and the restoring means (see figures 1-3), and wherein a surface of the guidance element facing the bore is along the entire length of the guidance element without any abrupt steps (see figure 3, #50).
With respect to claim 2, Chang discloses the guidance element is surrounded by a gap (gap between 32/31 and that of 13), the gap extending between an inner wall (32) of the bore and the guidance element and having a flow area (area within 30).
With respect to claim 7, Chang discloses the guidance element has a cross section at the end adjacent the valve element which is smaller than or equal to a corresponding cross section of the valve element (as noted being smaller than that of the valve element, see figure 3).
With respect to claim 8, Chang discloses the valve element comprises at least on a side facing the valve seat a symmetrically curved surface (being the side of 51 facing 15).
With respect to claim 9, Chang discloses the valve element comprises a spherical surface, at least in an area facing the valve seat (as the end face of 51 in figure 51, is spherical).
With respect to claim 12, Cheng discloses the housing comprises a first housing part (housing of 20) and a second housing part (10), wherein the second housing part comprises an outer thread in engagement with an inner thread in the first housing part (as seen in figure 3), wherein the second housing part comprises an inlet channel connected to the inlet and the valve seat is formed at an inner end of the inlet channel (as seen in figure 3, inlet channel 14 and valve seat 15).
Claim(s) 1 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Huang (U.S. 2018/0281008).
With respect to claim 1, Huang discloses an atomizing nozzle arrangement comprising a housing (housing having 10 and 20, see figures 2-3) having an inlet (12), a valve seat (seat of 54), a valve element (54) interacting with the valve seat (see figure 2), restoring means (spring 52) acting on the valve element (as seen in figure 2), and an orifice (32), wherein the valve element cooperates with a guidance element which (the guidance element being the bottom half of 50, the cylinder part on the bottom and the larger cylinder part, where the valve element is the spherical portion) is arranged in a bore of the housing (figure 2) and extends between the valve element and the restoring means (as seen in figures 2-3, extending between the two), wherein a surface of the guidance element facing the bore is without any abrupt steps along the entire length of the guidance element (as the bottom part of 50 has a surface facing the bore without any abrupt steps).
With respect to claim 13, Huang discloses a cone element (figure 5, the element of 40 having a conical bottom area at 48) is arranged in the housing between the guidance element and the orifice (as seen in figure 5), wherein the restoring means are arranged between the cone element and the guidance element (as the spring contacts 40 and the portion of 50 that’s the guidance element).
With respect to claim 14, Huang discloses wherein the restoring means are arranged in a recess in the guidance element and/or in a recess in the cone element (as there is a recess in both where the cone sits, between an outer rim and an inner cylindrical portion).
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeuchi (U.S. 20030052199).
With respect to claim 1, Ikeuchi discloses an atomizing nozzle (figure 9) arrangement comprising a housing (housing shown in figure 9) having an inlet (figures 9, inlet at 43c), a valve seat (43a), a valve element (42d) interacting with the valve seat (shown in figure 9), restoring means (spring S) acting on the valve element (as seen in figures 9-10), and an orifice (at the inlet), wherein the valve element cooperates with a guidance element (the guidance element of 42b) which is arranged in a bore of the housing and extends between the valve element and the restoring means (as shown in figures 9-10), and wherein a surface of the guidance element facing the bore is without any abrupt steps (as 42b is shown without any abrupt steps, as it is and led from the spring to that of 42d, it is shown that there is a hole 42f within the guidance element, but that is not being taken as “an abrupt step”) along the entire length of the guidance element (being the length of 42).
With respect to claim 20, Ikeuchi discloses the combined surfaces of the guidance element and the valve element are configured to provide a non-turbulent flow of a liquid in a direction away from the valve seat (paragraphs 0017 and 0030-0031).
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang.
With respect to claim 10, Chang discloses the valve element is made of a material (being made of something) but fails to disclose an elastically deformable material. The examiner notes that all material have some level of elastic deformation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a material that has elastically deformable properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
With respect to claim 11, Chang discloses the valve seat comprises a conical or curved form (figure 3, 15 being curved).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (02/12/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-20 are pending, and claim 1 is amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (12/16/2025).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) by Chang have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been changed in view of Chang to only use the section 50 as the guidance element, and other depend claims have been rejected now in view of a new reference (see above).
Applicant further argue that Huang’s guidance element has an abrupt step, the examiner notes the abrupt step being argued is not used in the structure of the guidance element disclosed in the rejection. Rather, only the larger cylindrical portion is being used to read on the guidance element and not the smaller cylindrical portion beneath it.
Applicant further argues that Ikeuchi fails to disclose “wherein a surface of the guidance element facing the bore and exiting along the entire length of the guidance element is without any abrupt steps.” Examiner has amended the rejection of Ikeuchi to now read on the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights