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 .
Claims
The Allowances of 02/12/2026 and 6/17/2026 are withdrawn by the notice mailed 6/26/2026. The claims addressed herein are the claim set filed 12/16/2025.
REMARKS
Due to examiner and office oversight, upon an incidental management review, it was determined that more likely than not, concerns under 35USC112, would likely result in unclear claim scope. As such, those concerns are addressed herein.
INTERVIEW
Examiner contacted attorney representative Kevin Bronson June 29th and June 30th, 2026 to discuss potential examiner amendments to obviate the concerns under 112. Applicant declined to agree to examiner amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-20 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, which recites, “being similar or identical”. However, “similar” is a relative term where the meets and bounds of the claim scope as to what encompasses “similar” is unascertainable.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, recites, “a particular mixture is achieved”. It is unclear what encompasses a “particular mixture”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, recites, “at least one of 1.0mm to 2.5mm; or, 1.3mm to 2.0mm”. However, if the second range is considered by the “at least one of” clause, it appears to create a range within a range situation, as such it is unclear.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, recites, “at least one of 5mm to 300mm; 50mm to 150mm; and 70-100mm…at least one of 200mm to 600mm; 300 to 400mm; and 330 to 375mm”. However, if the second range is considered by the “at least one of” clause, it appears to create a range within a range situation, as such it is unclear.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “500 mm to 3,000 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably 1,000 mm to 1,500 mm, more preferably of 1,100 mm to 1,250 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “5 to 40 nozzles”, and the claim also recites “8 to 28 nozzles” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 14, recites, “at least one of: 5-30degrees C; 8 to 15 degrees C; or 20 to 26 degrees C”. However, if the second range is considered by the “at least one of” clause, it appears to create a range within a range situation, as such it is unclear.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, recites, “at least one of 2 to 60 revs per min; 5 to 20 revs per min; or 10 to 15 revs per min;…at least one of 2 to 10 bar; or 3 to 7 bar”. However, if the second range is considered by the “at least one of” clause, it appears to create a range within a range situation, as such it is unclear.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642/JOSHUA J MICHENER/
Prosecution Insights