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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 27 August 2026 has been entered.
The Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the previous Specification objections. However, an additional Specification objection has been identified, which is provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
A 35 USC 112(a) rejection has been added in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome most of the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. However, the Applicant’s amendments did not overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection for claim 4. Additional 35 USC 112(b) rejections have also been added. As a result, there are still grounds for 35 USC 112(b) rejections in the current Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 27 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
New rejections have been added, which are not due to the Applicant’s amendments. As a result, the current Office action is in a non-Final status.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 27 August 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-8 and 10-16 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 and 10-18 are pending. Claims 17-18 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The incorporation by reference in the international patent application PCT/JP2021/034366 and of the Japanese patent application no. JP 2020-186820 is ineffective as it was added on the day of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the Instant Application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 17 September 2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 1 May 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
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 the following:
The “controller” in claim 1 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The generic placeholder is “controller” (defined as a means for controlling) and the functional limitations are “configured to: control an oscillation timing of an ultrasonic oscillator, based on a type of food among a plurality of foods; and control generation of at least one mist from the plurality of foods based on the controlled oscillation timing of the ultrasonic oscillator.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a central processing unit.
In claim 11, an additional functional limitation for the “controller” is “configured to control a flow of the at least one mist.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a fan.
In claim 15, an additional functional limitation for the “controller” is “configured to control the generation of the at least one mist based on a projection timing of an image, and the projection timing corresponds to a time of projection of the image onto the at least one mist.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a projection display device.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-16 are single means claims as the only limitation of the control device is the controller, which has been interpreted as a means plus function limitation. Everything else in the claims is just functions that are completed by the controller. A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. When claims depend on a recited property, a fact situation is possible, where the claim covers every conceivable structure (means) for achieving the stated property (result) while the specification discloses at most only those known to the inventor (MPEP 2164.08.a).
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 3-8 and 10 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.
The term “fine” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, it is not clear what size of droplets are considered by the Applicant to be “fine droplets,” and conversely, what size droplets are considered to not be “fine.” Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “fine,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 4 recites “The control device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is communicably coupled with a mist generator, wherein the mist generator includes an oscillation tank and at least one food tank, the oscillation tank includes the ultrasonic oscillator at a bottom part of the oscillation tank, a structure of the oscillation tank is a container-like structure including a liquid, a bottom part of the at least one food tank is in contact with the liquid and a structure of the at least one food tank is a container-like structure including the plurality of foods.”
The scope of the claim is unclear because the preamble of the claim is directed to a “control device;” however, the body of the claim includes structure that is not part of a “control device” (referencing fig. 4 of the Drawings in the Instant Application). As a result, it is unclear if claim 4 is directed to a control device or a device that is much more than a control device. Recommend broadening the scope of the preamble in claim 1 or making claim 4 an independent claim with a broad preamble that includes the control device of claim 1.
The term “different” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “different” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, it is unclear how the “plurality of foods are different” and the foods are different from. For the purposed of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as: “each of the plurality of foods are different from each other.”
Claims 5, 7-8, and 10 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 4.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono et al. (US-20080223953-A1) in view of Baym et al. (US-20140134298-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tomono teaches a control device (fig. 15), comprising;
a controller (central processing unit 45, fig. 15a) configured to:
control an oscillation timing (“frequency,” para 0182; the inverse of frequency is a time period of an oscillating signal; controlling a frequency of an oscillating signal is construed as controlling an oscillation timing) of an ultrasonic oscillator (ultrasonic transducer 40, fig. 15); and
control generation of at least one mist (“generated mist or vapor passes through between the mist guide mechanism lower parts 51 and 52 to then diffuse circumferentially,” para 0397; generated from Liq 2 (Wa), fig. 15A) from the plurality of foods (liquids a, b, c, and d as well as water W, fig. 15; “water,” “liquors, alcohols” para 0105 are construed as being the claimed “foods”) based on the controlled oscillation timing of the ultrasonic oscillator (the frequency is driven by drive circuit 43, para 0182; drive circuit 43, fig. 15a).
Tomono, fig. 15
PNG
media_image1.png
1059
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tomono does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to control the oscillation timing, based on a type of food among a plurality of foods.
However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Baym teaches a controller (para 0032) configured to control the oscillation timing, based on a type of food (layer 104 releases based on a “first frequency” and layer 114 releases based on a “second frequency,” para 0043; the layers can have “different encapsulated food additives,” para 0044; construed such that the frequency is determined based on the desired food additive that is released) among a plurality of foods (food additives 102 and 112, fig. 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tomono, in view of the teachings of Baym, by using encapsulating layers, as taught by Baym, around the liquids a, b, c, and d, which were placed in the liquid container 20 instead of using pouring means 60 and 60b to pour the liquids a, b, c, and d into the liquid container 20, as taught by Tomono, where the encapsulating layers, as taught by Baym, were activated by frequencies of the ultrasonic transducer, as taught by Tomono, in order to be able to release multiple distinct food additives to a consumer at the same time or at a range of times in response to a variety of conditions (Baym, para 0030).
Regarding claim 2, Tomono teaches wherein the plurality of foods comprises a liquid (liquids a, b, c, and d as well as water W, fig. 15).
Regarding claim 3, Tomono teaches wherein the at least one mist (para 0397) comprises fine droplets of the plurality of foods (para 0137).
Regarding claim 4, Tomono teaches wherein the control device (fig. 15) is communicably coupled with a mist generator (“mist generator,” para 0392),
the mist generator includes an oscillation tank (container 09 and container 19, fig. 15a) and at least one food tank (container 20, fig. 15a),
the oscillation tank includes the ultrasonic oscillator (transducer 40, fig. 15a) at a bottom part (container 19, fig. 15a) of the oscillation tank,
a structure of the oscillation tank is a container-like structure (the structure of container 09 and container 19 are container-like, fig. 15a) including a liquid (water W, fig. 15a)
a bottom part of the at least one food tank (container 20, fig. 15a) is in contact with the liquid (bottom part of container 20 is in contact with the water W, fig. 15a) and
a structure of the at least one food tank is a container-like structure (the structure of container 20 is container-like, fig. 15a) including the plurality of foods (liquids a, b, c, and d, and the water W are included in the Liq2 inside the container 20, paras 0406 and 0410).
Regarding claim 5, Tomono teaches wherein the ultrasonic oscillator (transducer 40, fig. 15a): generates propagates, via the liquid (Liq1, water W, fig. 15a) and the food tank (container 20, fig. 15a), a vibration to the plurality of foods and generates the at least one mist from the plurality of foods based on the propagation of the vibration (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Tomono teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose in this fig. 15 wherein the at least one food tank comprises a plurality of the food tanks, each of the plurality of food tanks includes a respective food of the plurality of foods, each of the plurality of foods are different from each other, the controller is further configured to control generation of a mist from each of the plurality of foods.
However, in the fig. 14 embodiment, Tomono teaches wherein the at least one food tank (container 20, fig. 14b) comprises a plurality of the food tanks (containers 20, 20b, and 20c, fig. 14a), each of the plurality of food tanks includes a respective food of the plurality of foods (Wa, Wb, and Wc, fig. 14b), each of the plurality of foods are different from each other (“differ in type,” para 0341), the controller is further configured to control generation of a mist (mist ma, fig. 14a) from each of the plurality of foods (paras 0386 and 0391; the containers rotate using a mechanism 17, fig. 14a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fig. 15 embodiment, in view of the teachings of the fig. 14 embodiment, by using a rotating mechanism 17 with multiple liquid containers 20, 20b, and 20c, as taught in fig. 14, instead of a single container 20, as taught in fig. 15, in order to generate a perfume recipe using multiple liquids, permitting the user to input an aroma recipe and a control processing unit to extract the type of perfume to be mixed, the mixing ratio, or the like (Tomono, paras 0315-0317).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tomono in view of Baym as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 7. Specifically, Tomono teaches an oscillation frequency (“frequency,” para 0182) of the ultrasonic oscillator (transducer 40, fig. 15). Additionally, Baym teaches wherein the controller (para 0032) is further configured to control an oscillation frequency (“frequency,” para 0182) on a basis of a type of food (layer 104 releases based on a “first frequency” and layer 114 releases based on a “second frequency,” para 0043; the layers can have “different encapsulated food additives,” para 0044; construed such that the frequency is determined based on the desired food additive that is released).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tomono in view of Baym as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Tomono teaches an oscillation frequency (“frequency,” para 0182) of the ultrasonic oscillator (transducer 40, fig. 15). Additionally, Baym teaches wherein the controller (para 0032) is further configured to control an oscillation frequency based on a type of a secondary ingredient (food additive 112, fig. 1B), and the secondary ingredient corresponds to one of an ingredient to which the mist of a food (food additive 102, fig. 1B) of the plurality of foods is attached (“can be introduced to the consumer at the same time,” para 0012; construed such that the additives attach when released at the same time) and an ingredient immersed in the food of the plurality of foods (food additive 112 is immersed in food additive 102, fig. 1B; layer 104 releases based on a “first frequency” and layer 114 releases based on a “second frequency,” para 0043; the layers can have “different encapsulated food additives,” para 0044; construed such that the frequency is determined based on the desired food additive that is released).
Regarding claim 10, Tomono teaches wherein the food tank is detachable from the mist generator (para 0188).
Regarding claim 11, Tomono teaches wherein the controller (unit 45, fig. 15a) is further configured to control a flow of the at least one mist (mist ma, fig. 15a; para 0406).
Regarding claim 12, Tomono teaches wherein the controller (unit 45, fig. 15a) is further configured to control a flow of a mist (mist ma, fig. 15a) from each of the plurality of foods (para 0398).
Regarding claim 13, Tomono teaches wherein the controller (central processing unit 45, fig. 15a) is further configured to control the generation of the at least one mist (mist ma, fig. 15a), based on a sensing result (), and the sensing result (results from temperature sensor St and liquid level detection sensor S, fig. 15a; result from user operating unit 46, fig. 15) corresponds to a result of at least one of: the at least one mist (not explicitly disclosed), a user (para 0396), or an environment (paras 0394 and 0402-0403).
Regarding claim 14, Tomono teaches wherein the controller (central processing unit 45, fig. 15a) is further configured to control the generation of the at least one mist (mist ma, fig. 15a) based on at least one state of the plurality of foods (“temperature,” para 0394) or an amount of the plurality of foods (liquid level detection, paras 0402-0403).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono et al. (US-20080223953-A1) in view of Baym et al. (US-20140134298-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ishita et al. (JP-2015179131-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Tomono teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to control the generation of the at least one mist based on a projection timing of an image, the projection timing corresponds to a time of projection of the image onto the at least one mist.
However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Ishita teaches wherein the controller (control unit 11, fig. 3; construed as including projector 2, fig. 1) is further configured to control the generation of the at least one mist (para 0035) based on a projection timing (“time,” para 0036) of an image (fig. 6), the projection timing corresponds to a time of projection of the image to be projected onto the at least one mist (“projected image 600 is projected onto the screen 315 and displayed,” para 0040; fig. 6).
Ishita, fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
558
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tomono, in view of the teachings of Ishita, by using a projector, as taught by Ishita, to project onto the midst, as taught by Tomono, in order to project images onto a mist screen, which creates the effect such that the images appear to float in mid-air (Ishita, para 0002).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono et al. (US-20080223953-A1) in view of Baym et al. (US-20140134298-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Edwards et al. (US-20190339654-A1).
Tomono teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to control the generation of the at least one mist based of an output timing of music, and the output timing corresponds to a time of output of the music to a user.
However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid misting devices, Edwards teaches wherein the controller (mobile device 712, fig. 8A) is further configured to control the generation of the at least one mist based on an output timing of music (“time intervals,” para 0102), and the output timing corresponds to a time of output of the music (“the scent track 726 may be synchronized with the audio track 724,” para 0102) to a user (“Icons 830 representing different scents can be used as labels for the scent track composer to keep track of which scent is to be released at the various transitions in the music,” para 0103).
Edwards, fig. 8A
PNG
media_image3.png
472
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tomono, in view of the teachings of Edwards, by timing of the midst generation, as taught by Tomono, such that it was synchronized based on various transitions in music, as taught by Edwards, for the advantage of providing olfactory stimuli combined with audio signals, enhancing the overall sensory experience for a user (Edwards, paras 0005 and 0033).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
Page 10 of the arguments states that “Claims 1, 4, 6, and 12 have been amended, as set forth above. In view of the amendments, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of the claims 1-8 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, be withdrawn.”
Claim 4 was rejected because the claim includes structure that should not be within the “control device,” at least according to what is disclosed in the Specification. As a result, the scope of claim 4 is unclear. Recommend either changing the preamble of claim 1, making claim 4 an independent claim that includes the “control device” of claim 1, or clearly explaining how the metes and bounds of claim 4 are clear and why the claim should not be rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/103
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Pages 10-13 arguments allege that Baym (US-20140134298-A1) does not teach the limitation: “wherein the controller controls the oscillation timing on a basis of a type of food.” Most of the arguments (pages 11-13) are excerpts from Baym. After this excerpt section, page 13 then concludes:
“Thus, Baym describes that the activation source releases different food additives 102 and 112 (i.e., the bacteria, enzymes, or other naturally occurring or synthetic agents) at different times based on the release schedule that defines the duration of time between releases of the different food additives, where the different food additives is released in response to the activation source emitting energy at different frequency values” (Applicant’s emphasis).
The examiner agrees that Baym teaches releasing different food additives 102 and 112. This was stated by the examiner in the rejection for Baym. As acknowledged on page 10 of the arguments, the examiner explained the following regarding Baym in the rejection:
“layer 104 releases based on a ‘first frequency’ and layer 114 releases based on a ‘second frequency,’ para 0043; the layers can have ‘different encapsulated food additives,’ para 0044; construed such that the frequency is determined based on the desired food additive that is released” (page 16 of the Office action filed 2 June 2026).
Page 13 of the arguments asserts that “Baym does not describe controlling an oscillation timing of an ultrasonic oscillator based on a type of food” (Applicant’s emphasis). However, this is a conclusory statement. No evidence is cited as to why Baym does not describe this controlling step.
The examiner maintains that Baym teaches the limitation “wherein the controller controls the oscillation timing on a basis of a type of food.” As evidence, the examiner has cited paragraphs 0043 and 0044 of Baym, which disclose how different food additives can be released by using different frequencies.
The examiner’s understanding of this limitation in the Instant Application is based on what is disclosed in the Specification. Similar to what Baym teaches, the Specification of the Instant Application describes using different frequencies:
“In FIG. 9 , each of the plurality of food tanks 12A is provided with one oscillator of the ultrasonic oscillator 13, but the present embodiment is not limited to this example. For example, the mist generating device 20 may be provided with a plurality of oscillators having different frequencies of the ultrasonic waves to be generated from each other for each of the plurality of food tanks 12A so that the ultrasonic waves of multiple frequencies are generatable independently in each of the food tanks 12A.”
In order to overcome this rejection, recommend clearly explaining what feature (citing as evidence the Drawing or Specification of the Instant Application) causes the claimed invention to be distinguished over the Baym reference (citing as evidence specific disclosure or figures from Baym) and then clearly explaining how this difference is present in the claim language.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/3/2026
Prosecution Insights