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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 29 January 2026, with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under §§ 102 and 103 have been withdrawn.
It is noted that Applicant has requested for rejoinder for the withdrawn claims. The Examiner will consider the request once the elected claims are in condition for allowance.
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 1-8 and 24-29 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.
In regard to claims 1 and 24-25, it is unclear what “(negative)” means in relation to the recited “(negative) Dv(90)” and “(negative) span factor” values. Is the inclusion or recitation of “(negative)” merely so the values are recited as a negative number? If so, the Examiner holds that reciting the values in such a way is misleading and unclear. Additionally, the phrase “of up to above” as used to describe the values of the “(negative) Dv(90)” and “(negative) span factor” is unclear. Does it mean that all numbers of a smaller value (i.e. a larger negative number) or between the recited negative number and 0 is intended to be included by the phrase? As such, if the claims were allowed to issue, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the above limitations.
The remaining claims are rejected based upon their dependence on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 24-29 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the recited spray nozzle including a membrane which is capable of producing an aerosol spray having the recited characteristics of Dv(50), Dv(90) and span factor. The closest prior art of record was determined to be Furner et al. (US 2014/0048617) and Tasz et al. (US 2017/0173202). Furner et al. discusses the characteristics of the aerosol spray in [0131] but is silent in regard to the recited span factor and use of a membrane. Tasz et al. discloses the characteristics of the aerosol spray in the tables of page 5 but is silent in regard to a membrane. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the teachings of Furner et al. or Tasz et al. to modify a prior art spray nozzle including a membrane and to have arrived at the recited aerosol spray dispensing system as the person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to modify a membrane as such.
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 TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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 571-272-1000.0
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774