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 amendments filed 12/15/2025 have been entered. Claim 15 has been canceled. Claims 1-14 and 16-25 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 09/16/2025, hereinafter NFOA0916.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in NFOA0916.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in NFOA0916.
Applicant has asserted that the prior art of record Adams is not prior art, and further has asserted that Adams should be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A), due to Adams being authored by one of the listed inventors of the instant application. Accordingly, the previously presented prior art rejection under Adams has been overcome due to at least the exception being invoked. The previously presented prior art rejection is thus withdrawn herein.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perna (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200373141 A1).
Examiner notes that Perna is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 03/12/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Perna teaches an electrospray device (Title; Abstract) comprising:
a substrate (See Figs. 5, item 121; Abstract; [0030]; [0060]; [0063]); and
one or more emitters, wherein the one or more emitters extend from the substrate (See Figs. 5-7, items 122; Abstract; [0030]), and wherein each of the one or more emitters comprises an ionic electroactive polymer ([0048], Examiner notes Nafion is an ionic electroactive polymer).
Regarding claim 2, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 1.
Perna further teaches wherein the ionic electroactive polymer is non-porous ([0048], Examiner notes that Nafion is non-porous).
Regarding claim 3, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 1.
Perna further teaches wherein the ionic electroactive polymer is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene based fluoropolymer-copolymer ([0048], Examiner notes that Nafion is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene based fluoropolymer-copolymer).
Regarding claim 4, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 1.
Perna further teaches further comprising a reservoir ([0028]-[0029]) configured to contain a liquid ion source operatively coupled with the one or more emitters such that the liquid ion source is transported from the reservoir to the one or more emitters ([0003]; [0020]; [0028]-[0029]; [0065]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 4.
Perna further teaches wherein the reservoir is operatively coupled to the one or more emitters through the substrate ([0028]-[0030]; [0063]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 6, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 4.
Perna further teaches further comprising the liquid ion source disposed in the reservoir ([0028]-[0029]; [0064]-[0066]), and wherein the liquid ion source comprises at least one of an ionic liquid and a room-temperature molten salt ([0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 4.
Perna further teaches further comprising a first electrode electrically connected to the one or more emitters through the liquid ion source (See Figs. 9; [0065]; [0070]) and at least a second electrode positioned downstream relative to the one or more emitters and the first electrode (See Figs. 9; [0070]; [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 8, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 7.
Perna further teaches wherein the second electrode is an extractor electrode ([0081]).
Regarding claim 9, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 7.
Perna further teaches wherein the one or more emitters are configured to emit ions when a voltage potential is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode (Abstract; [0003]; [0065]-[0066]; [0070]; [0078]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 10, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 1.
Perna further teaches wherein the substrate comprises at least one selected from the group of a porous material and the ionic electroactive polymer ([0048]-[0052]; [0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 1.
Perna further teaches wherein the one or more emitters include a plurality of emitters disposed in an array (See Figs. 4-6, 9-10; Abstract; [0017]-[0019]; [0022]-[0023]; [0028]-[0030]; [0035]; [0050]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 12, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 1.
Perna further teaches wherein each of the one or more emitters comprises a tip disposed distal from the substrate (See Figs. 5-7; [0028]-[0043]), and wherein a tip radius of the one or more emitters is between or equal to 0.1 nm and 500 µm ([0024]-[0026]; [0031]-[0039], and in particular [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Perna teaches the electrospray device of claim 12.
Perna further teaches wherein the tip radius of the one or more emitters is between or equal to 20 µm and 30 µm ([0024]-[0026]; [0031]-[0039], and in particular [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Perna teaches a method, comprising:
applying a voltage differential to one or more emitters (Abstract; [0003]; [0065]-[0066]; [0070]; [0078]-[0081]);
diffusing a liquid ion source through a material of the one or more emitters ([0003]; [0020]; [0028]-[0029]; [0065]-[0068]); and
emitting ions from a tip of each of the one or more emitters (Abstract; [0003]; [0065]-[0066]; [0070]; [0078]-[0081]),
wherein the material of the one or more emitter comprises an ionic electroactive polymer ([0048], Examiner notes Nafion is an ionic electroactive polymer).
Regarding claim 16, Perna teaches the method of claim 14.
Perna further teaches further comprising transporting the liquid ion source from a reservoir to the one or more emitters ([0003]; [0020]; [0028]-[0029]; [0065]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 17, Perna teaches the method of claim 15.
Perna further teaches wherein the ionic electroactive polymer is non-porous ([0048], Examiner notes that Nafion non-porous).
Regarding claim 18, Perna teaches the method of claim 15.
Perna further teaches wherein the ionic electroactive polymer is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene based fluoropolymer-copolymer [0048], Examiner notes that Nafion is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene based fluoropolymer-copolymer.
Regarding claim 19, Perna teaches the method of claim 14.
Perna further teaches wherein the liquid ion source comprises at least one selected from the group of an ionic liquid and a room-temperature molten salt ([0066]).
Regarding claim 20, Perna teaches the method of claim 14.
Perna further teaches wherein a tip radius of the one or more emitters is between or equal to 0.1 nm and 500 µm ([0024]-[0026]; [0031]-[0039], and in particular [0038]).
Regarding claim 21, Perna teaches the method of claim 20.
Perna further teaches wherein the tip radius of the one or more emitters is between or equal to 20 µm and 30 µm ([0024]-[0026]; [0031]-[0039], and in particular [0038]).
Regarding claim 22, Perna teaches a method of forming an electrospray emitter ([0083]-[0087]) comprising:
mixing a solution of a solvent, an ionic electroactive polymer, and a liquid ion source ([0083]-[0087], in particular [0084]-[0085]); and
molding the solution to form one or more emitters ([0083]-[0087], in particular [0084]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 23, Perna teaches the method of claim 22.
Perna further teaches further comprising pouring the solution into a mold shaped to form the one or more emitters ([0085], Examiner interprets forming the emitter array via ‘molding’ as inherently includes placing the solution into a mold).
Regarding claim 25, Perna teaches the method of claim 22.
Perna further teaches wherein the ionic electroactive polymer is non-porous ([0048], Examiner notes that Nafion is non-porous).
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perna (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200373141 A1) in view of Lozano (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20140054809 A1).
Examiner notes that Lozano is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 03/12/2025.
Regarding claim 24, Perna teaches the method of claim 23.
Perna further teaches ([0048]).
Perna does not explicitly teach further comprising drying the solution in the mold to form the one or more emitters at least partially from the ionic electroactive polymer (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, Examiner notes that one or ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the steps of molding to form emitter tips, and would know that any wet molding would require drying to achieve functional emitters.
Nevertheless, Lozano teaches further comprising drying the solution in the mold to form the one or more emitters ([0031]-[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Perna to explicitly include further comprising drying the solution in the mold to form the one or more emitters, as taught by Lozano, in order to achieve further comprising drying the solution in the mold to form the one or more emitters at least partially from the ionic electroactive polymer.
Doing so represents combining known techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to form emitter tips via a known technique disclosed by Perna and further detailed by Lozano.
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 CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881