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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on August 5, 2026. Claims 1, 8, and 10-14 have been amended. Claims 16-29 and 31-36 have been withdrawn. Claims 3 and 30 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument on pages 8-9, Applicant argues that Duquet describes a liquid spray head that according to figure 6 has a central first group of spray orifices (18) surrounded by a second group (27) of spray orifices. Contrary to present claim 1, the (20 micron) spray orifices of this second group are larger than the (10 micron) spray orifices of the central first group. The larger droplets emanating from the second group will experience hardly any suction from the smaller droplets released by the first group. The Examiner acknowledges that the embodiment in Figure 1 of Duquet does not read on the limitation. However, another embodiment in Figure 12 of Duquet does teaches the first group (27f) comprises micropores having a larger average size than an average size of the micropores within the second group (28f) of micropores (diameter of micropores in first group 27f is larger than diameter of micropores in second group 28f as shown in Fig. 12). As a result, the rejection under 35 USC § 102 is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10-15, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duquet (US 2019/0388910 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Duquet discloses an aerosol spray dispensing system (“fluid dispenser”, see Par. [0001 and 0008]) comprising: a non-pressurized container (“fluid reservoir”, see Par. [0039]) containing a liquid formulation; a spray nozzle (2) in fluid communication with the container, the spray nozzle (2) including a membrane (26) having micropores (27 and 28, see Par. [0051])) through which the liquid formulation passes as the liquid formulation is dispensed from the system; and a pump (P) configured to provide a force causing the liquid formulation to move from the container and through the spray nozzle (2) such that the liquid formulation is discharged from the system as an aerosol spray, wherein the micropores (27f and 28f) comprise a first group (27f) of micropores adjacent a second group (28f) of micropores, wherein said first group releases a first aerosol portion (type of material is a matter of material worked upon, the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115), wherein the second group releases a second aerosol portion (type of material is a matter of material worked upon, the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115), adjacent the first aerosol portion (Fig. 12), wherein the first group (27f) comprises micropores having a larger average size than an average size of the micropores within the second group (28f) of micropores (diameter of micropores in first group 27f is larger than diameter of micropores in second group 28f as shown in Fig. 12), and wherein a spray density of the first aerosol portion emanating from the first group (27f) is larger than a spray density of the second aerosol portion emanating from the second group (Fig. 12 shows the first group 27a has a greater number of spray streams (12 vs. 9) than the second group 28f on the membrane 26f).
With regard to claim 2, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein the first group (27f) comprises micropores having a larger pore density than a pore density of the micropores within the second group (28f) of micropores (Fig. 12 shows the first group (27f) has larger number (12 vs. 9) of micropores than the second group 28f on the membrane 26).
With regard to claim 4, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein the micropores within the second group of micropores release a microjet under a diverging jet angle with respect to an axis of the spray nozzle (Duquet explicitly mentions diverging holes in par. [0048]).
With regard to claim 5, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein the at least one micropore within the first group releases a microjet substantially parallel to the axis of the spray nozzle (Duquet explicitly mentions parallel holes in par. [0048]).
With regard to claim 8, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein particles in the aerosol spray have a Dv(50) size of 30 µm to 70 µm (Duquet explicitly mentions the defined droplet sizes e.g. in paragraph [0019]).
With regard to claim 10, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein the nozzle includes 40 to 125 micropores (Par. [0048]), and wherein the micropores range in diameter from 5 µm to 10 µm (Par. [0051]).
With regard to claim 11, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein micropores range in diameter from 5 µm to 8 µm (Par. [0051]).
With regard to claim 12, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein a total open area on the surface of the membrane provided by the micropores in form 1100 µm2 to 6150 µm2 (the value can be calculated as defined in Par. [0048], [0051]).
With regard to claim 13, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 12 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein a total open area on the surface of the membrane provided by the pores in form 1100 µm2 to 3200 µm2 (the value can be calculated as defined in Par. [0048], [0051]).
With regard to claim 14, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that the liquid formulation includes one or more of an air freshening composition including (i) fragrance oil and (ii) water or a solvent; a deodorizer agent; a disinfectant agent; an insecticide agent; and a cleaning agent (the types of liquids are mentioned in Par. [0001] ("perfumery, cosmetics, or even pharmacy") or Par. [0018] (fragrance, perfume)).
With regard to claim 15, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein the pump is a positive displacement pump (see pump as depicted in Fig. 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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duquet.
With regard to claim 6, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet does not disclose the smaller second group (28f) of micropores surrounds the larger first group in figure 12. However, Duquet also teaches in a different embodiment, figure 7 that the smaller second group (28) of micropores surrounds the larger first group (27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement between first and second groups of micropores as taught in figure 7, since a series of holes of smaller size is arranged around a series of holes of larger size and vice versa, the moistening (wetting) aspect is enhanced relative to the olfactory aspect (Par. [0013]).
With regard to claim 7, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 6 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein the first group (27f) and the second group (28f) each comprise at least one ring of micropores, said rings of micropores being substantially concentric with one another (see Figs. 7 and 12).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duquet in view of Johannes (WO 2017/095227 A1).
With regard to claim 9, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Duquet does not disclose that wherein the aerosol spray emanates from the micropores of the membrane in the spray nozzle in Rayleigh jets that subsequently break up particles of the aerosol spray.
Johannes teaches an aerosol spray dispensing system, wherein the aerosol spray emanates from the micropores of the membrane in the spray nozzle in Rayleigh jets that subsequently break up particles of the aerosol spray (Page 1 lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol spray dispensing system of Duquet, by configuring the micropores of the membrane in the spray nozzle to have the capability to generate Rayleigh jets that subsequently break up articles of the aerosol spray as taught by Johannes, for the benefit of generating a fluidic micro-jet spray and that allows and retains a relatively narrow droplet size distribution of microjets and droplets obtained via a Rayleigh breakup mechanism under a well defined angle of deflection (Page 2 lines 16-20).
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
