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 response filed on January 30th, 2026 is acknowledged. Six pages of amended claims were received on 1/30/2026. Claims 1, 7, and 25 have been amended.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group I and Atomizer Species B in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 12/2/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 26-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/30/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art fails to disclose all of the features of amended Claim 1 submitted 1/30/20265.
This is not found persuasive because the requirement for restriction mailed 12/2/2025 was based on Claim 1 that was submitted 9/13/2023, for which the prior art reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the structural and functional limitations as noted in the requirement for restriction mailed 12/2/2025. Furthermore, the features of amended Claim 1 submitted 1/30/2026 are also taught by prior art, as evidenced by the below rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Therefore, Invention Group I, Invention Group II, Atomizer Species A, and Atomizer Species B lack unity of invention because even though the inventions and species of these groups require the technical feature of the atomizer of Claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “114” (See Paragraph 0042, there are no swirl fins 114 labeled in Figure 5B).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, 12, 17, 19-20, and 23-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Lines 2-3, “central axis “X”” should be revised to “central axis” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Lines 8-10, “at least one nozzle cap detachably coupled concentrically to the body with a coupling means and the at least one nozzle mounted along the central axis enclosing the at least one nozzle” should be revised to “at least one nozzle cap detachably coupled concentrically to the body with a coupling means, wherein the at least one nozzle cap is mounted along the central axis enclosing the at least one nozzle” to ensure clarity in the claim and to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Line 12, “at least one tube” should be revised to “at least one tube from the plurality of independent tubes” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claims 1, 4, 8, 23, and 25, each instance of “plurality of inlets” should be revised to “plurality of independent inlets” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claims 2 and 6, each instance of “plurality of tubes” should be revised to “plurality of independent tubes” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 3, “at least one inlet of the atomizer” should be revised to “at least one inlet from the plurality of independent inlets” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 5 Line 2, “a second fluid supply unit” should be revised to “the second fluid supply unit” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 6 Line 4, “towards at least one nozzle” should be revised to “towards the at least one nozzle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 6 Line 6, “towards at least one nozzle cap” should be revised to “towards the at least one nozzle cap” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claims 7-10 and 19-20, each instance of “the nozzle” should be revised to “the at least one nozzle” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claims 9 and 12, each instance of “the nozzle cap” should be revised to “the at least one nozzle cap” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 9 Lines 1-2, “wherein the nozzle cap is detachably coupled to the body with a coupling means, wherein the nozzle cap comprises:” should be revised to “wherein the at least one nozzle cap comprises:” to avoid repeating claim limitations that were already previously recited.
In Claim 10 Lines 4-5, “for the flow of input fluid” should be revised to “for flow of the at least one input fluid” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 17 Lines 1-2, “wherein the diameter of the first chamber is greater than the diameter of the second chamber” should be revised to “wherein a diameter of the first chamber is greater than a diameter of the second chamber” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 19 Line 1, “wherein nozzle” should be revised to “wherein the at least one nozzle” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claims 20 and 23, each instance of “the input fluid” should be revised to “the at least one input fluid” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 23 Lines 1-2, “for preventing the leakage” should be revised to “for preventing leakage” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 24 Line 1, “wherein at least one auxiliary device” should be revised to “wherein the at least one auxiliary device” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 25 Line 3, “the pneumatic mode” should be revised to “the hydro-pneumatic mode” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 25 Line 3, “the droplets sprinkled” should be revised to “droplets sprinkled” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations that use the word “means”:
The “coupling means” in Claims 1 and 9 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0038 of the Specification which states, “The coupling means may comprise one of a press fitting arrangement, a fastening arrangement, an adhesive, a threaded connection, and a snap-fit arrangement.”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “coupling means” in Claims 1 and 9 to be a press fitting arrangement, a fastening arrangement, an adhesive, a threaded connection, a snap-fit arrangement, or equivalents thereof.
The “fluid entering means” in Claim 10 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0039 of the Specification which states, “The fluid entering means comprises a plurality of tangential vane slots (111) enabling the liquid to enter tangentially into the vortex chamber”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “fluid entering means” in Claim 10 to be a plurality of tangential vane slots, and equivalents thereof.
The “sealing means” in Claim 12 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0041 of the Specification which states, “In one embodiment, the sealing means comprises a sealing ring (110), not only limited to, but any suitable arrangement may also be selected for the sealing means to maintain a tight position between the body (103) and the nozzle cap”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “sealing means” in Claim 12 to be a sealing ring, a seal, and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
The “coupling means” in Claim 11, which recites structure of “the coupling means comprises one of a press fitting arrangement, a fastening arrangement, an adhesive, a threaded connection, and a snap-fit arrangement”;
The “sealing means” in Claim 13, which recites structure of “the sealing means is a sealing ring”; and
The “fluid entering means” in Claim 14, which recites structure of “the fluid entering means comprises a plurality of tangential vane slots enabling input fluid to enter tangentially into the second chamber”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
The examiner further notes that the terms “closure unit” in Claim 3, “first fluid supply unit” in Claims 4-5, and “second fluid supply unit” in Claims 4-5 are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). While the claim terms use the generic placeholder “unit”, the claim terms are deemed to recite sufficient structure of a “closure” and a “supply”.
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 10-17 and 22 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 9 is indefinite because Lines 8-9 state “a discharge portion comprising a cavity adjacent to the fluid holding bath configured to couple with the nozzle in a tight position” and the term “tight position” is a relative term. The term “tight position” is not explicitly defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is not clear what distance is required between the discharge position and the nozzle to qualify as being a “tight position”. For the purpose of examination, Claim 9 Lines 8-9 will be interpreted to state “a discharge portion comprising a cavity adjacent to the fluid holding bath configured to couple with the at least one nozzle in a position”.
Claims 10-11 and 14-17 depend from Claim 9, therefore Claims 10-11 and 14-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claim 10 is also indefinite because Lines 1-3 state “wherein the cavity comprises a first chamber having a fluid entering means and a second chamber or vortex chamber” and is it not clear if “a second chamber or vortex chamber” means that the second chamber is a vortex chamber or if it means that a vortex chamber is an alternative to the claimed second chamber. For the purpose of examination, Claim 10 Lines 1-3 will be interpreted to state “wherein the cavity comprises a first chamber having a fluid entering means and a second chamber that is a vortex chamber”.
Claim 10 is also indefinite because Lines 3-5 state “wherein the first chamber is configured to mate with the front end of the nozzle leaving a small portion of the fluid entering means open to the second chamber for the flow of input fluid” and the term “small portion” is a relative term. The term “small portion” is not explicitly defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is not clear what size of space is required to be open in the fluid entering means to qualify as having a “small portion” open. For the purpose of examination, Claim 10 Lines 3-5 will be interpreted to state “wherein the first chamber is configured to mate with the front end of the at least one nozzle leaving a portion of the fluid entering means open to the second chamber for flow of the at least one input fluid”.
Claims 14 and 16 depend from Claim 10, therefore Claims 14 and 16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claim 12 is indefinite because Lines 2-3 state “wherein the sealing means is adapted to maintain a tight position between the body and the nozzle cap” and the term “tight position” is a relative term. The term “tight position” is not explicitly defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is not clear what distance is required between the discharge position and the body and the nozzle cap to qualify as being a “tight position”. For the purpose of examination, Claim 12 Lines 2-3 will be interpreted to state “wherein the sealing means is adapted to maintain a position between the body and the at least one nozzle cap”.
Claim 13 depends from Claim 12, therefore Claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claim 15 is also indefinite because Lines 1-3 state “wherein at least one nozzle cap is configured to mate concentrically with the at least one nozzle to seal the second chamber” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the second chamber” in the claim. It is not clear if a second chamber was intended to be previously recited or not and whether Claim 15 is intended to depend from a different claim. For the purpose of examination, Claim 15 Lines 1-3 will be interpreted to state “wherein the at least one nozzle cap is configured to mate concentrically with the at least one nozzle to seal a second chamber of the cavity”. Claim 17 is also indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “wherein the diameter of the first chamber is greater than the diameter of the second chamber” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the first chamber” and “the second chamber” in the claim. It is not clear if a first chamber and second chamber were intended to be previously recited or not, and whether Claim 17 is intended to depend from a different claim. For the purpose of examination, Claim 17 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “wherein a diameter of a first chamber of the cavity is greater than a diameter of a second chamber of the cavity”.
Claim 22 is indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “wherein the plurality of swirl fins is configured to rotate in the same direction or the opposite direction as the vane slots” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the vane slots” in the claim. It is not clear if vane slots were intended to be previously recited or if Claim 22 is intended to depend from a different claim. For the purpose of examination, Claim 22 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “wherein the plurality of swirl fins is configured to rotate in a same direction or an opposite direction as vane slots of the at least one nozzle cap.”
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 1-17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 3,512,719 to Phelps et al. (“Phelps”).
As to Claim 1, Phelps discloses an atomizer (See Fig. 2), comprising:
a body (#12) comprising a plurality of independent inlets (See first inlet FI and second inlet SI in Annotated Fig. 2, which are both inlet orifices), wherein the body has a central axis (See Axis A1 in Annotated Fig. 2);
at least one nozzle (#16) having a rear end (See RE in Annotated Fig. 2-Detail) and a front end (See FE in Annotated Fig. 2-Detail), mounted concentrically along the central axis (See Annotated Fig. 2);
at least one nozzle cap (#14 and #18) detachably coupled concentrically to the body (See Annotated Fig. 2, coupling means that are threads attach #18 of the cap to the body) with a coupling means and the at least one nozzle mounted along the central axis enclosing the at least one nozzle (See Annotated Fig. 2, the coupling means are threads that concentrically mount the nozzle cap along the central axis to enclose #16); and
a plurality of independent concentric tubes coaxially integral with the body and connected to the plurality of inlets (See T1 that is fluidly connected to SI and T2 that is fluidly connected to FI. T1 and T2 are both integrally formed with #12 and share A1 as a central axis and are thus coaxially integral with the body), wherein at least one tube is mounted along the central axis and enclosed by the at least one nozzle cap (See Annotated Fig. 2, the tube T1 is mounted along the central axis and is enclosed by the cap);
wherein the atomizer is configured to operate in at least one of a hydro-pneumatic mode and a hydraulic mode (See Col. 2 Lines 30-40 disclosing liquid being provided from #30 and air being provided from #24, thus the atomizer can operate in a hydraulic mode when only liquid is provided, and can operate in a hydro-pneumatic mode when both liquid and air are provided), when the at least one nozzle receives at least one input fluid selected from a liquid and a gas, from at least one inlet from the plurality of inlets (See Col. 2 Lines 30-40 disclosing one input fluid that is a liquid from FI and one fluid that is a gas from SI).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the at least one nozzle receives at least one input fluid through at least one tube from the plurality of tubes (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 30-40. The nozzle receives liquid from T1).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein a closure unit is configured to seal at least one inlet of the atomizer (See Annotated Fig. 2. #30 and #24 are both arranged such that some closure can seal #30 and such that some closure can seal #24).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the plurality of inlets comprises:
at least one inlet from the plurality of inlets configured to receive a first fluid from a first fluid supply unit (See FI in Annotated Fig. 2, which is an inlet that can receive a first fluid from some first fluid supply unit); and
at least one other inlet from the plurality of inlets configured to receive a second fluid from a second fluid supply unit (See SI in Annotated Fig. 2, which is another inlet that can receive a second fluid from some second fluid supply unit).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 4 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the first fluid supply unit is a liquid supply unit, and a second fluid supply unit is a gas supply unit (See Col. 2 Lines 30-40 disclosing that liquid is provided to #30 and gas is provided to #24. Furthermore, #24 and #30 are arranged such that #24 is capable of receiving liquid and #30 is capable of received gas).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the plurality of tubes comprises:
at least one tube from the plurality of tubes configured to allow a flow of gas through the tube towards at least one nozzle (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 30-40, the tube T2 allows a flow of gas from #24 to flow in a direction towards RE of #16 and against an exterior surface of the nozzle); and
at least one other tube from the plurality of tubes configured to allow a flow of liquid through the tube towards at least one nozzle cap (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 30-40, the tube T1 allows a flow of liquid from #30 to flow in a direction towards and through the nozzle cap).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the atomizer is configured to operate in the hydro-pneumatic mode, when the nozzle receives gas and the liquid from the plurality of independent inlets (See Col. 2 Lines 30-40. The atomizer operates in the hydro-pneumatic mode when gas flows from #24 and liquid flows from #30, with gas mixing with liquid).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the atomizer is configured to operate in the hydraulic mode, when the nozzle receives liquid from at least one inlet of the plurality of inlets (See Col. 2 Lines 30-40. If gas is not provided from #24 and liquid is provided from #30, then the atomizer will operate in the hydraulic mode where only liquid is provided).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the nozzle cap is detachably coupled to the body with a coupling means (See threads on #18 in Annotated Fig. 2), wherein the nozzle cap comprises:
a base portion (See BP in Annotated Fig. 2-Detail) comprising a plurality of handles (See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, an upper rear half of #18 can be considered one handle that can be grasped by a person’s hand and a lower rear half of #18 can be considered another handle that can be grasped by a person’s hand) and a receptacle with the coupling means adapted to couple with the body (See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, the receptacle is a portion of #18 that has threads that coupled with the body);
a middle portion (See MP in Annotated Fig. 2-Detail) comprising a fluid holding bath adjacent to the receptacle (See FB in Annotated Fig. 2-Detail), wherein the fluid holding bath is configured to receive an input fluid from at least one tube from the plurality of independent tubes (See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, the fluid holding bath receives gas from #24); and
a discharge portion (See DP in Annotated Fig. 2-Detail) comprising a cavity adjacent to the fluid holding bath (See a front interior of #14) configured to couple with the nozzle in a tight position (See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, the discharge potion DP fluidly couples with #16 at a distance from #16 so there is some space between DP and the nozzle) and an outlet orifice adjacent to the discharge portion concentrically aligned to discharge output fluid or mixture of fluid (See DO in Annotated Fig. 2).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 9 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the cavity comprises a first chamber (See C1 in Annotated Fig. 2-Detail) having a fluid entering means (See channels #74 in Fig. 3) and a second chamber or vortex chamber (See C2 in Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, which is a chamber where fluid forms a vortex), wherein the first chamber is configured to mate with the front end of the nozzle leaving a small portion of the fluid entering means open to the second chamber for the flow of input fluid (See Fig. 1 and See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 9 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the coupling means comprises one of a press fitting arrangement, a fastening arrangement, an adhesive, a threaded connection, and a snap-fit arrangement (See Annotated Fig. 2, the coupling means are threads).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the body and the nozzle cap are coupled through a sealing means (See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, #18 of the nozzle cap couples to the body by a sealing means which is a sealing ring formed by an end thread on #18), wherein the sealing means is adapted to maintain a tight position between the body and the nozzle cap (See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, the sealing ring that is a thread maintains a threadedly engaged position between the body and the nozzle cap).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 12 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the sealing means is a sealing ring (See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, the sealing means is a single thread that is equivalent to a sealing ring).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 10 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the fluid entering means comprises a plurality of tangential vane slots enabling input fluid to enter tangentially into the second chamber (See #74 in Fig. 3 and See Col. 3 Lines 60-70).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 9 above, Phelps further discloses wherein at least one nozzle cap is configured to mate concentrically with the at least one nozzle to seal the second chamber (See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, the nozzle cap mates concentrically with the nozzle to partially seal C2).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 9 above, Phelps further discloses wherein side walls of the first chamber and the second chamber converge towards the outlet orifice (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 2-Detail. C1 and C2 both converge inwardly towards DO).
As to Claim 17, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 9 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the diameter of the first chamber is greater than the diameter of the second chamber (See Annotated Fig. 2-Detail, C1 has a larger maximum diameter than C2).
As to Claim 25, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein when the atomizer is configured to operate in the pneumatic mode, a droplet size and a spreading frequency of the droplets sprinkled by the atomizer are varied by adjusting a gas to liquid ratio in the plurality of inlets (See Col. 2 Lines 30-40. When air is mixed with liquid in the hydro-pneumatic mode, a droplet size and spreading frequency of sprinkled droplets can be varied when a ratio of air to liquid is adjusted).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps in view of US PGPUB 2014/0048622 A1 to Haruch (“Haruch”).
As to Claim 19, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps further discloses wherein the nozzle comprises an orifice concentrically aligned (See #60 in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Phelps does not disclose wherein the orifice is configured to have a variable diameter, wherein walls of the orifice converge towards the front end of the nozzle or towards the rear end of the nozzle (See Fig. 2, the orifice #60 has a constant diameter that does not converge).
However, Haruch discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraph 0001), an atomizer (See Fig. 1) comprising a nozzle (#20) that comprises an orifice (#24 and #25) concentrically aligned (See Fig. 1, #20 is concentrically align with #21 and #22) and configured to have a variable diameter (See conical section #25 of the orifice, which has a variable diameter), wherein walls of the orifice converge towards a front end of the nozzle (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019).
Therefore, 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 atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above such that the orifice is configured to have a variable diameter, wherein walls of the orifice converge towards the front end of the nozzle or towards the rear end of the nozzle by utilizing a conical section in the orifice as taught by Haruch, since doing so would yield the predictable result of accelerating fluid being sprayed towards a concentrated outlet of the atomizer.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps in view of US Patent 5,697,553 to Stotts (“Stotts”).
Regarding Claim 20, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps does not disclose wherein the nozzle comprises a plurality of swirl fins configured to swirl the input fluid.
However, Stotts discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Col. 1 Lines 4-6) an atomizer (See Fig. 1) comprising a nozzle (#14) that comprises a plurality of swirl fins (See features surrounding slots #37 in Fig. 2) configured to swirl an input fluid (See Col. 4 Lines 3-20).
Therefore, 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 atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above such that the nozzle comprises the plurality of swirl fins of Stotts configured to swirl the input fluid, since doing so would yield the predictable result of forming a free vortex and breaking up into a spray of fine droplets (See Stotts Col. 4 Lines 3-20).
As to Claim 21, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps in view of Stotts as applied to Claim 20 above, Stotts further discloses wherein a direction of rotation of the plurality of swirl fins is selected from a clockwise direction and an anticlockwise direction (See Stotts Fig. 2, the swirl fins rotate in a direction that can be considered clockwise).
As to Claim 22, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps in view of Stotts as applied to Claim 20 above, Phelps as modified by Stotts further discloses wherein the plurality of swirl fins is configured to rotate in the same direction or the opposite direction as the vane slots (See Stotts Fig. 2, the swirl fins rotate in a direction that can be considered clockwise. The vane slots #74 in Fig. 3 of Phelps also rotate in a direction that can be considered clockwise).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps in view of US Patent 4,901,888 to Standlick (“Standlick”).
Regarding Claim 23, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above, Phelps does not disclose wherein at least one auxiliary device is coupled with at least one inlet from the plurality of inlets for preventing the leakage and reverse flow of the input fluid (See Fig. 2 and Col. 3 Lines 60-75. No devices are specifically shown being coupled to #24 or #30).
However, Standlick discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid delivery (See Col. 1 Lines 10-16) a fluid gun (See Fig. 1) comprising an auxiliary device (#100) that is coupled with a fluid inlet (#90) for preventing leakage and reverse flow of an input fluid (See Col. 4 Lines 6-16, the one way check valve #100 couples with #90 and prevents fluid from leaking past #100).
Therefore, 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 atomizer of Phelps as applied to Claim 1 above such that it includes the one auxiliary device of Standlick coupled with at least one inlet from the plurality of inlets for preventing the leakage and reverse flow of the input fluid, since doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing fluid from being delivered to the atomizer when it is not desired (Standlick Col. 4 Lines 10-16).
As to Claim 24, in reference to the atomizer of Phelps in view of Standlick as applied to Claim 23 above, Standlick further discloses wherein at least one auxiliary device comprises one of a leakage prevention device, a non-return valve, a check valve, a solenoid valve, and a combination thereof (See Col. 4 Lines 10-15 disclosing that #100 is a check valve).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1465
1927
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights