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 1-6 and 8-21 are pending, claim 7 has been cancelled, claims 1, 5, and 17-19 are amended.
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 § 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 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rouillon (U.S. 2015/0260139).
With respect to claim 1, Rouillon discloses an atomizing nozzle arrangement (figure 4) comprising a housing (32) having an inlet (at 38 into 48), a valve seat (56), a valve element interacting with the valve seat (50), a restoring means acting on the valve element (spring 70), and an orifice (figure 1, the hole at the left side of the housing to the left of 22), wherein the valve element cooperates with a guidance element (guidance element can be that of 72 and 76, or just that of 76) which is arranged in a bore of the housing and extends between the valve element and the restoring means (as shown in figure 4), wherein a surface of the guidance element facing the bore and extending along an entire length of the guidance element is without any abrupt steps (76 by itself has no abrupt steps, 72 and 76 together has a rounded corner connecting to each other, which is not being taken as an abrupt step but a rounded corner), and wherein the restoring means pushes the guidance element against the valve element such that the valve element is pushed against the valve seat (76 pushes against 50, paragraphs 0046 and 0062), and wherein the guidance element has a cross section at an end adjacent the valve element which is smaller than or equal to a corresponding cross section of the valve element (see figure 5).
With respect to claim 2, Rouillon discloses the guidance element is surrounded by a gap (gap about 76/72), the gap extending between an inner wall of the bore and the guidance element and having a flow area (flow about 72/76), the gap being empty except for the flow (as shown in figure 4).
With respect to claim 3, Rouillon 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 4).
With respect to claim 4, Rouillon 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 4).
With respect to claim 5 and 17-19, Rouillon discloses the cross section of the guidance element monotonically increases in a direction away from the valve element along the entire length of the guidance element (as shown in figure 4 and 5, taking 76 as the guidance element it always increases away from the valve element).
With respect to claim 6, Rouillon discloses the valve element, and the guidance element contact each other releasably (see figures 4 and 5).
With respect to claim 12, Rouillon discloses a first housing part (32) and a second housing part (34), wherein the second housing part comprises an outer thread in engagement with an inner thread in the first housing part (paragraph 0042), wherein the second housing part (34) comprises an inlet channel (adjacent 38) connected to the inlet and the valve seat is formed at an inner end of the inlet channel (see figure 4).
With respect to claim 13, Rouillon discloses a cone (at the bottom of 22, being between 22 and the noted orifice, see figure 1, understood that the base of the pressure limiter is not being modified and has the disclosed structure in figure 1) element is arranged in the housing between the guidance element and the orifice (see figure 1) wherein the restoring means are arranged between the cone element and the guidance element (as seen in figure 1).
With respect to claim 14, Rouillon discloses the restoring means are arranged in a recess in the guidance element and/or in a recess in the cone element (being within a recess in 72, see figure 4).
With respect to claim 15, Rouillon discloses the restoring means are in form of a spring of a metal or plastic material or in form of an elastomer body (being a spring that is an elastomer body that acts as a spring, well understood being made of metal or plastic).
With respect to claim 16, Rouillon discloses the flow area is smallest at a position which is located in a halve of the guidance element remote from the valve element (see figure 4).
With respect to claim 20, Rouillon 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 (being configured as disclosed in figure 4).
Claim(s)1, 8-9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Looney (U.S. 4,531,542).
With respect to claim 1, Looney discloses an atomizing nozzle arrangement (figure 1) comprising a housing (42/36) having an inlet (at 26), a valve seat (within 36), a valve element (48) interacting with the valve seat (sea of 36), a restoring means acting on the valve element (66) and an orifice (16), wherein the valve element cooperates with a guidance element (64) which is arranged in a bore of the housing and extends between the valve element and the restoring means (as shown in figure 1), wherein a surface of the guidance element facing the bore and extending along an entire length of the guidance element is without any abrupt steps (64 has no steps), wherein the restoring means pushes the guidance element against the valve element such that the valve element is pushed against the valve seat (as 48 is within the system, loosely, column 3 rows 10-20, when the valve is closed, the 66 pushes 64 against ), and wherein the guidance element has a cross section at an end adjacent the valve element which is smaller than or equal to a corresponding cross section of the valve element (as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 8, Looney discloses the valve element comprises at least on a side facing the valve seat a symmetrically curved surface (as shown in figure 1, where the curved surface of 36 matches that of 48)).
With respect to claim 9, Chang discloses the valve element comprises a spherical surface, at least in an area facing the valve seat (as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 21, Looney discloses an atomizing nozzle arrangement (figure 1) comprising a housing (42/36) having an inlet (at 26), a valve seat (within 36), a valve element interacting with the valve seat (48), a restoring means acting on the valve element (66) and an orifice (16), wherein the valve element cooperates with a guidance element (64) which is arranged in a bore of the housing and extends between the valve element and the restoring means (as shown in figure 1), wherein a surface of the guidance element facing the bore and extending along an entire length of the guidance element is without any abrupt steps (64 has no steps), wherein the valve element and the guidance element contact each other releasably (as 48 is within the system, loosely, column 3 rows 10-20), and wherein the guidance element has a cross section at an end adjacent the valve element which is smaller than or equal to a corresponding cross section of the valve element (as shown in figure 1).
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 Rouillon.
With respect to claim 10, Rouillon 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, Rouillon discloses the valve seat comprises a conical or curved form (figure 6).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (06/26/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending, claim 7 has been cancelled, claims 1, 5, and 17-19 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (03/30/2026).
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicants Arguments, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the previous rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the above rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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