CTNF 18/272,948 CTNF 96830 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment The amendments filed 04/30/2026 with the above entered request for continued examination have been entered. Claim 2, 17, and 25 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-14, 16, and 18-24 are now pending in the application. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, and 22 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended claim limitation which were not present at the time of the Final Office Action dated 02/04/2026, hereinafter FOA0204. Nevertheless, for clarity of the record, Examiner will address Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended limitations, as they pertain to distinguishing over the prior art Perna. Applicant argues “As discussed in the interview, every embodiment of an emitter disclosed in Perna is directed to either: a porous emitter that functions by wicking a working material through the pores of the emitter (see, e.g., Perna paragraphs [0049], [0064]); or a "guard emitter" that is always accompanied by porous emitters (see, Perna paragraphs [0061]-[0062]). As Perna explains, guard emitters, "preferentially function to externally wet with working material," and Perna specifically describes designs intended to "prevent working material from being emitted from the guard emitter." (See paragraph [0062].) In view of the above, Perna teaches that in the context of other emitters, "the pores function to control the working material emission." (Paragraph [0049].) Thus, as discussed in the Interview, none of the emitters in Perna is taught to be non-porous and to transport ions and/or ionic liquid through a bulk of the ionic electroactive polymer to a tip of the emitter , as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 1 as amended is patentable over Perna.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1 does not preclude the embodiments disclosed by Perna, and because there are definiteness issues with the claim (see below). Under the BRI, claim 1 requires: An electrospray device, comprising: a substrate; one or more emitters, the one or more emitter extend from the substrate, each of the one or more emitters comprises an ionic electroactive polymer, the one or more emitters are non-porous, the one or more emitters are configured to transport ions and/or ionic liquid, through a bulk of the ionic electroactive polymer to a tip of each of the one or more emitters. Under the BRI, limitation (ii)b requires that each of the emitters include an ionic electroactive polymer (IEP), but does not place any limitation on how the emitters include the IEP, on what morphology the IEP takes, on the proportion of the IEP to the emitter as a whole, or on any particular type of IEP. Perna clearly satisfies (i), (ii)a, and (ii)b as discussed in FOA0204. Limitation (ii)c separately requires that the emitters be non-porous (see below for discussion of indefiniteness). However, it appears that the emitters would necessarily be porous in some fashion, else external wetting or internal capillary structures would be the only means of providing the ionic liquid to the emitter tips. For instance, Nafion has a hydrophobic PTFE backbone, which is typically hydrophobic, but with sulfonic acid groups that allow the material to create ion channels, allowing for water transport through the membrane. In this regard, Nafion is ‘porous’ to water and ions, however, it is also impermeable to at least some other fluids, so in that regard, Nafion is ‘non-porous’. Regardless, Perna discloses controlling the porosity of the emitters in [0062], and in particular discloses filling the void space with emitter material. Accordingly, the argument regarding the porosity is not convincing. Applicant’s argument regarding the disclosure of ‘preventing working material from being emitted from the guard emitter’ is not convincing. Only the embodiment of an externally coated guard emitter is disclosed as preventing working material from being emitted from the guard emitter, while the disclosed embodiment of an internally coated guard emitter ‘to modify working material fluid properties within the internal surface of the guard emitter’, indicates the use of an internal coating to change fluid properties within the internal surface (i.e., in the bulk) of the guard emitter, which would control the flow of the fluid therethrough. The disclosure of an alternative embodiment that does not satisfy the claims is not relevant to the disclosure of embodiments that do. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument that porous and non-porous emitters are used together in Perna is not convincing. Perna disclosing the use of both emitters and guard emitters together is not precluded by the claim and does not render invalid the guard emitters reading on the limitations of the claim. The relative number of guard emitters and emitters is also not particularly limited in Perna, including explicit disclosure of embodiments having more guard emitters than emitters, and being relatively positioned in any arrangement. Accordingly, the argument regarding the porosity is further not convincing. Next, Applicant’s argument regarding the citation of [0061] is not convincing, as the proper context is not presented and thus the reasoning is incomplete. The full sentence reads “In variants, the emitter array can include one or more guard emitters, which preferably function to externally wet with working material and/or emit working material from an external surface.”, which clearly indicates that the guard emitters are capable of externally wetting with working material an external surface and/or emitting working material from an external surface. The emitter array is disclosed as being coupled to the reservoir to provide the working material, or alternatively, the emitter array itself can store the working material. An ordinarily skilled artisan in view of these disclosures would understand the guard emitters (which are a part of the emitters of the emitter array) to be ‘configured to transport ions and/or ionic liquid through a bulk of the ionic electroactive polymer to a tip of each of the one or more emitters’ in embodiments including the IEP. Furthermore, Perna discloses “The guard emitters are preferably solid, but can be porous and/or have any suitable structure.”, indicating that the preferred embodiment of the guard emitters are not porous. Similar logic holds for claims 14 and 22, however, Examiner notes that in claim 14, the liquid ion source is required to be diffused through a bulk of a material of the one or more emitters, rather than through the IEP of the one or more emitters. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 14 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 14 and 22 recite “the emitters”, however, the claims previously require ‘one or more emitters’, and thus, while definite in context, the term lacks antecedent basis, as only one emitter is required under the BRI; Accordingly, to maintain consistency, this term should read ‘the one or more emitters’ in agreement with the rest of the claims . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 3-14, 16, and 18-24 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, the claim requires that the one or more emitter be configured to transport ions and/or ionic liquid through a bulk of the ionic electroactive polymer to the emitter tip(s), however, it also requires that the one or more emitters be non-porous. It is unclear how the emitter(s) can be non-porous and also allow for the ions/ionic liquid to be transported through a bulk of the ionic electroactive polymer to the tip(s), as this would appear to require that at the emitters be at least partially porous, at least to ions and/or ionic liquid, in at least the portion that comprises the ionic electroactive polymer. Applicant’s disclosure ([0030]) indicates that “…the emitter conducts the liquid ion source and/or the ions through its bulk via the polymer free volume.”, and describes how the ions traverse the IEP, however, under the BRI, this still requires a material that is porous to the ionic liquid at least, since a definition of ‘porous’ according to the American Heritage Dictionary reads “Admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices.”, while such a definition of a ‘pore’ reads “A minute passage or interstice.” Accordingly, the material would be understood as being porous, at least to the ions/ionic liquid, and would understand being “without any substantial amount of interconnected physical porosity in the emitter” to mean the polymer is continuous, as in having no additionally manufactured pores therein. Examiner notes that the claim does not distinguish between scales of porosity or limit the degree of porosity required to be ‘non- porous’. In other words, if the material allows ions/ionic liquid to diffuse through it via free space, as evident from the above discussed portions of the specification, then the material is by definition porous to some degree. The claim is indefinite for requiring the material to be non-porous (understood as ‘not allowing the passage of fluid or gas’) and requiring the material (i.e., the emitter) to allow passage of a liquid through at least a portion of its bulk (i.e., the IEP portion, which is not particularly structurally limited). As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the one or more emitters have no manufactured pores therein’. Claims 14 and 22 are indefinite for similar reasons to claim 1, with claim 14 being directed to a method and thus having the diffusion of the liquid ion source through the bulk of the material of the one or more emitters explicitly required to be performed, not merely a capability, however, the issue regarding ‘non-porous’ while allowing diffusion of a liquid remains. Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-14, 16, 18-23, 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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, 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]; [0061]-[0062]; i.e., both emitters and guard emitters ) , wherein each of the one or more emitters comprises an ionic electroactive polymer ([0048], Examiner notes Nafion is an ionic electroactive polymer ) , wherein the one or more emitters are non-porous ( See above interpretation ; [0031]; [0044]; [0048], Examiner notes that Nafion is ‘non-porous’, as best understood, as it is indicated as an exemplary non-porous material capable of diffusion an ionic liquid ; [0061]-[0062]) , and wherein the one or more emitters are configured to transport ions and/or ionic liquid through a bulk of the ionic electroactive polymer to a tip of each of the one or more emitters ([0029]; [0031]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]; Examiner notes Nafion is inherently capable of transporting ions/ionic liquid therethrough, thus the disclosed Nafion emitters are capable of such a limitation ) . 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]) , wherein the [one or more] emitters are non-porous ( See above interpretation ; [0031]; [0044]; [0048], Examiner notes that Nafion is ‘non-porous’, as best understood, as it is indicated as an exemplary non-porous material capable of diffusion an ionic liquid ; [0061]-[0062]) ; diffusing a liquid ion source through a bulk of a material of the one or more emitters to a tip of each of the one or more emitters ([0003]; [0020]; [0028]-[0029]; [0031]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]; [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 18, Perna teaches the method of claim 14. 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 ([0048]; [0083]-[0087], in particular [0084]-[0085]) ; and molding the solution to form one or more emitters comprising the ionic electroactive polymer ([0048]; [0083]-[0087], in particular [0084]-[0085]) , wherein the [one or more] emitters are non-porous ( See above interpretation ; [0031]; [0044]; [0048], Examiner notes that Nafion is ‘non-porous’, as best understood, as it is indicated as an exemplary non-porous material capable of diffusion an ionic liquid ; [0061]-[0062]) , and wherein the one or more molded emitters are configured to transport ions and/or ionic liquid through a bulk of the ionic electroactive polymer to a tip of each of the one or more emitters ([0029]; [0031]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]; Examiner notes Nafion is inherently capable of transporting ions/ionic liquid therethrough, thus the disclosed Nafion emitters are capable of such a limitation ) . 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 ) . Alternative 35 U.S.C. 102 Claim Rejection 07-15 AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Dulay (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220181136 A1) . Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dulay teaches an electrospray device (Title; Abstract; See Figs. 1-5, 7-9, 20) comprising: a substrate (See Figs. 1-5, item 102), and one or more emitters, wherein the one or more emitters extend from the substrate (See Figs. 1-5, items 102, 108; [0052]-[0059]) , wherein each of the one or more emitters comprises an ionic electroactive polymer ([0057], Examiner notes PTFE is an ionic electroactive polymer ) , wherein the one or more emitters are non-porous ( See above interpretation ; [0057], Examiner notes that PTFE is ‘non-porous’, as best understood, as it is indicated as an exemplary non-porous material capable of diffusion an ionic liquid ; [0052]-[0059]) , and wherein the one or more emitters are configured to transport ions and/or ionic liquid through a bulk of the ionic electroactive polymer to a tip of each of the one or more emitters ([0052]-[0059]; Examiner notes PTFE is disclosed as suitable by Applicant’s specification and is inherently capable of transporting ions/ionic liquid therethrough, thus the disclosed PTFE emitters are capable of such a limitation ) . 07-15 AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Maziarz (DOI: 10.1016/S1044-0305(00)00134-3) . Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Maziarz teaches an electrospray device (Title; Abstract) comprising: a substrate (See Fig. 1, emitter mount; Instrumentation section) ; and one or more emitters, wherein the one or more emitters extend from the substrate (See Fig. 1, PANI coated emitter; Instrumentation section) , wherein each of the one or more emitters comprises an ionic electroactive polymer ( PANI/Polyaniline is interpreted as an ionic electroactive polymer , see Abstract; Paragraph 3 of Introduction; Experimental section) , wherein the one or more emitters are non-porous ( See above interpretation ; Instrumentation section; External coating is non-porous, as interpreted, and is additionally disclosed as transmitting ionic liquid, i.e., electrospray is transmitted from inside bulk of tip through ionic electroactive polymer, but would be non-porous to some liquid or gas ) , and wherein the one or more emitters are configured to transport ions and/or ionic liquid through a bulk of the ionic electroactive polymer to a tip of each of the one or more emitters (Instrumentation Section; Results and Discussion Section; Electrospray is transmitted from inside tip through ionic electroactive polymer to the extremum of the tip of the emitter, thus emitters are configured to do so ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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 further comprising drying the solution in the mold to form the one or more emitters at least partially from the ionic electroactive polymer ([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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art documents disclose electrospray arrays for manufacturing, manipulating, propulsion, etc., however, typically any polymer or IEP is applied as a coating to the emitter tips (e.g., nafion, PTFE, IEPs, etc.), or similarly a nanostructured element (e.g. carbon nanotube forests, silicon nanostructures, etc.) is fabricated on the emitter tips, in both cases to enhance the electrospray by some metric. See citations below, for example: Lunte, Wood, Kertesz, Velasquez-Garcia, Hill, Gassend. Various other similar prior art electrospray examples exist for the above indicated applications and others, such as porous emitters or other conventional emitters, which are widely known. See Applicant provided prior art from IDSs (e.g. various Lozano electrospray docs), and citations below, for example: Fenn, Fenn’005, Buldrini, Chiarot, Ataman, Velasquez-Garcia, Hill, Gassend. Examiner additionally notes that the use of IEPs such as nafion for filtering is also disclosed in the prior art, however, this filtering occurs not at the tip of the emitter, and the tip of the emitter does not comprise the IEP. See for example: Petersen, Whitehouse’700 (and US family members thereof). Fenn (US 20040226279 A1); Whitehouse (US 20050258360 A1); Lunte (US 20180158663 A1); Wood (US 20020003209 A1); Kertesz (US 20100072357 A1); Velasquez-Garcia (US 20140353860 A1); Petersen (WO 2015197072 A1); Whitehouse’700 (US 20140048700 A1), see also US family members; Fenn’005 (US 20030209005 A1); Buldrini (US 20200340459 A1); Chiarot (P. R. Chiarot, P. Sullivan and R. Ben Mrad, "An Overview of Electrospray Applications in MEMS and Microfluidic Systems," in Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1241-1249, Dec. 2011, doi: 10.1109/JMEMS.2011.2168810); Ataman (C. Ataman, S. Dandavino and H. Shea, "Wafer-level integrated electrospray emitters for a pumpless microthruster system operating in high efficiency ion-mode," 2012 IEEE 25th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) , Paris, France, 2012, pp. 1293-1296, doi: 10.1109/MEMSYS.2012.6170394); Hill (F. A. Hill, E. V. Heubel, P. P. de Leon and L. F. Velásquez-García, "High-Throughput Ionic Liquid Ion Sources Using Arrays of Microfabricated Electrospray Emitters With Integrated Extractor Grid and Carbon Nanotube Flow Control Structures," in Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1237-1248, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1109/JMEMS.2014.2320509); Gassend (B. Gassend, L. F. Velasquez-Garcia, A. I. Akinwande and M. Martinez-Sanchez, "A Microfabricated Planar Electrospray Array Ionic Liquid Ion Source With Integrated Extractor," in Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems , vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 679-694, June 2009, doi: 10.1109/JMEMS.2009.2015475). 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 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881 48 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 2 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 3 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 4 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 5 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 6 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 7 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 8 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 9 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 10 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 11 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 12 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 13 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 14 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 15 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 16 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 17 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 18 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 19 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 20 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 21 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/272,948 Page 22 Art Unit: 2881
Prosecution Insights