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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, (Claims 1-15 and 30) and Species I (Fig. 2) in the reply filed on January 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-29 and 31-36 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 6, 2026.
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 1-15 and 30 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 product" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to -the liquid formulation- or -a product-.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first aerosol portion" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggest to amend the limitation to -the first aerosol spray portion-.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second aerosol portion" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggest to amend the limitation to -the second aerosol spray portion-.
Claims 2-15 and 30 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of dependency on claim 1.
The term “about” in claims 8, 10-13 and 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. The claims recites numerical ranges modified by the term “about”, for example: “about 30 µm to about 70 µm.” The term “about” is a term of approximation which, absent objective boundaries or guidance in the specification, renders the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter unclear.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the pores" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggest to amend the limitation to -the micropores-.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the liquid compound" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggest to amend the limitation to -the liquid formulation- or -a liquid compound-.
Claim 30 recites “The aerosol spray according to claim 1…” However, claim 1 is directed to: “An aerosol spray dispensing system…” Claim 1 does not claim an “aerosol spray.” Therefore, there is no antecedent basis in claim 1 for “the aerosol spray.” Claim 30 attempts to depend upon subject matter that is not claimed in claim 1. As such, the scope and statutory basis of the dependency are unclear.
Claim 30 further recites “wherein the particles have a Dv(50) particle size…” Claim 1 does not introduce “particles.” Although claim 1 recites that a liquid formulation is discharged as an aerosol spray, it does not expressly introduce particles. The term therefore lacks proper antecedent basis.
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 1-8, 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 product passes as the product 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 (27 and 28) comprise a first group (28) of at least one micropore adjacent a second group (27) of micropores, wherein said first group releases a first aerosol spray portion, wherein the second group releases a second aerosol spray portion, adjacent the first aerosol portion (Fig. 6), and wherein a spray density of the first aerosol portion emanating from the first group (28) is larger than a spray density of the second aerosol portion emanating from the second group (Fig. 6 shows the first group 28 has higher packing density of micropores than the second group 27 on the membrane 26).
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 (28) comprises micropores having a larger pore density than a pore density of the micropores within the second group (27) of micropores (Fig. 6 shows the first group (28) has higher packing density of micropores than the second group 27 on the membrane 26).
With regard to claim 3, 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 (27) comprises micropores having a larger average size than an average size of the micropores within the second group (28) of micropores (see Par. [0051] and Fig. 6).
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 6, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that wherein the second group (27) of micropores surrounds the first group (28) (see Fig. 6).
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 (28) and the second group (27) each comprise at least one ring of micropores, said rings of micropores being substantially concentric with one another (see Fig. 6).
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 spray have a Dv(50) size of about 30 µm to about 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 about 5 µm to about 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 about 5 µm to about 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 pores in form about 1100 pm2 to about 6150 pm2 (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 about 1100 pm2 to about 3200 pm2 (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 compound 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 ).
With regard to claim 30, the dispensing system of Duquet discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Duquet further discloses that the particles have a Dv(50) particle size of about 35 pm to about 45 pm (Duquet explicitly mentions the defined droplet sizes e.g. in paragraph [0048]).
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 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
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