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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-102093, filed on 06/24/2022.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 03/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-19 remain pending in the application. Claims 2, 14, and 20 are canceled.
Applicant’s amendments on the Drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/09/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa JP H02261525 A, October 10, 1990 (hereinafter “Karasawa”), in view of Lissoni EP 0196280 A2, October 01, 1986 (hereinafter “Lissoni”).
Regarding claim 1, Karasawa discloses an emulsifier, comprising: a water guide nozzle (figure 1, paragraph 0001), into which raw material is supplied; an upstream nozzle (figure 2, front liner 15) disposed on a downstream side of the water guide nozzle, the upstream nozzle including a first and a second upstream nozzle water guide portions (figure 2, inlet holes 15c, 15d) each having an elongated hole and having enlarged diameter portions at both ends; and a downstream nozzle (figure 4, back liner 16) disposed on a downstream side of the upstream nozzle, the downstream nozzle having a downstream nozzle water guide portion (figure 5, second guide groove 16a) into which the raw material is supplied (paragraph 0001). Karasawa further discloses a first chamber inner membrane (figure 1, receiving block 4) into which the raw material is supplied; a second chamber inner member (figure 1, mixing chamber forming block 8) disposed outside the water guide nozzle 2, the upstream nozzle and the downstream nozzle; and a chamber outer member (figure 1, outer cylinder 1) disposed outside the first chamber inner member and the second chamber inner member (paragraph 0001). However, Karasawa fails to disclose that the upstream nozzle is directly disposed on the downstream side of the water guide nozzle as recited.
Lissoni discloses a static flow emulsifier including a series of narrow passages or orifices (4) alternating with expansion compartments (5), wherein an expansion compartment is located immediately downstream of an orifice or narrow passage so as to subject the fluid flow to abrupt pressure and velocity changes for improved emulsification (figure 1, page 2, lines 12-22; page 5, lines 14-31). Lissoni further discloses arranging such flow-directing elements sequentially and immediately adjacent along the flow path (page 4, lines 19-26) to improve emulsification performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the emulsifier of Karasawa such that the upstream nozzle is directly disposed on the downstream side of the water guide nozzle as taught by Lissoni. The motivation for doing so would have been to subject the fluid to abrupt pressure and velocity changes, thereby improving emulsification efficiency and flow characteristics.
Regarding claim 4, Karasawa discloses a first chamber inner member includes an inner periphery 3a, and the chamber outer member includes an engagement portion 1a (figure 1) configured to engage with the peripheral portion (paragraph 0001).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Karasawa discloses a tightening adjustment member (figure 1 - threaded portion 7a) which is threadedly engaged with the threaded portion 1a (figure 1) formed on the outer periphery of the outer cylinder, and fixes the supply nozzle members to one end of the outer cylinder (paragraph 0001).
Regarding claims 7, and 16, Karasawa discloses in figure 6 below a water guide nozzle includes a projection-shaped water guide nozzle joint formed on a downstream side 15, the upstream nozzle includes a projection-shaped first upstream nozzle joint formed on an upstream side 16, the first upstream nozzle joint configured to be joined to the water guide nozzle joint, and a projection-shaped second upstream nozzle joint formed on a downstream side, and the downstream nozzle 15 includes a projection-shaped first downstream nozzle joint formed on an upstream side 16, the first downstream nozzle joint configured to be joined to the second upstream nozzle joint, and a projection-shaped second downstream nozzle joint formed on a downstream side 15.
PNG
media_image1.png
950
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3, 8, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa JP H02261525 A, October 10, 1990 (hereinafter “Karasawa”)in view of Lissoni, as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Nishida JP 2005/288390 A, Oct. 20, 2005 (hereinafter “Nishida”).
Regarding claim 3, Karasawa is relied upon as above. Karasawa further discloses a second chamber inner member includes a second distal end (see figure 7), and a water guide nozzle peripheral portion disposed inside the second distal end (paragraph 0001).
Karasawa fails to disclose a first chamber inner member, includes a first chamber inner member slope, and the water guide nozzle includes a water guide nozzle taper joined to the first chamber inner member slope. However, Nishida discloses a first inner member slope (figure 1 – inclined wall 8, paragraph 0047). The water guide nozzle includes a water guide nozzle taper (figure 1). The advantages of the inclined wall at the end of the first hollow cylindrical tube, is a well-known design choice in fluid-handling structures to improve flow efficiency and reliability, and their application in a slit chamber would represent a routine optimization yield result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a sloped and tapered configuration to the art taught by Karasawa to promote controlled and uniform flow through the slit chamber, thereby reducing flow separation and stagnation regions.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Karasawa discloses a first chamber inner member includes an inner periphery 3a, and the chamber outer member includes an engagement portion 1a (figure 1) configured to engage with the peripheral portion (paragraph 0001). Karasawa also discloses a tightening adjustment member (figure 1 - threaded portion 7a) which is threadedly engaged with the threaded portion 1a (figure 1) formed on the outer periphery of the outer cylinder, and fixes the supply nozzle members to one end of the outer cylinder (paragraph 0001).
Regarding claims 15, Karasawa discloses in figure 6 above a water guide nozzle includes a projection-shaped water guide nozzle joint formed on a downstream side 15, the upstream nozzle includes a projection-shaped first upstream nozzle joint formed on an upstream side 16, the first upstream nozzle joint configured to be joined to the water guide nozzle joint, and a projection-shaped second upstream nozzle joint formed on a downstream side, and the downstream nozzle 15 includes a projection-shaped first downstream nozzle joint formed on an upstream side 16, the first downstream nozzle joint configured to be joined to the second upstream nozzle joint, and a projection-shaped second downstream nozzle joint formed on a downstream side 15.
Claim 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa JP H02261525 A, October 10, 1990 (hereinafter “Karasawa”) in view of Lissoni, as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Yoshihara U.S. Pub. No. 4591080 A, May 27, 1986 (hereinafter “Yoshihara”).
Regarding claim 6, Karasawa fails to disclose the upstream nozzle includes, in a lower portion, an upstream nozzle flat portion, the downstream nozzle includes, in a lower portion, a downstream nozzle flat portion, and the second chamber inner member includes a flat positioning portion inside the second chamber inner member.
However, Yoshihara teaches a stepped portion 85 (figure 17) having an oval-shaped periphery with a pair of flat portions and adapted for receiving the bottom plate brick 33 (figure 19, column 14; lines 30-34). The flat portion provides a stable reference surface that facilitates predictable flow, while also simplifying alignment and attachments of the nozzles within a support structure. 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 nozzle taught by Karasawa to have a flat portion to enhance structural stability without altering the fundamental operation of the nozzle.
Regarding claim 18, Karasawa discloses in figure 6 above a water guide nozzle includes a projection-shaped water guide nozzle joint formed on a downstream side 15, the upstream nozzle includes a projection-shaped first upstream nozzle joint formed on an upstream side 16, the first upstream nozzle joint configured to be joined to the water guide nozzle joint, and a projection-shaped second upstream nozzle joint formed on a downstream side, and the downstream nozzle 15 includes a projection-shaped first downstream nozzle joint formed on an upstream side 16, the first downstream nozzle joint configured to be joined to the second upstream nozzle joint, and a projection-shaped second downstream nozzle joint formed on a downstream side 15.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa in view of Lissoni and Nishida as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Yoshihara U.S. Pub. No. 4591080 A, May 27, 1986 (hereinafter “Yoshihara”).
Regarding claim 11, Karasawa fails to disclose the upstream nozzle includes, in a lower portion, an upstream nozzle flat portion, the downstream nozzle includes, in a lower portion, a downstream nozzle flat portion, and the second chamber inner member includes a flat positioning portion inside the second chamber inner member.
However, Yoshihara teaches a stepped portion 85 (figure 17) having an oval-shaped periphery with a pair of flat portions and adapted for receiving the bottom plate brick 33 (figure 19, column 14; lines 30-34). The flat portion provides a stable reference surface that facilitates predictable flow, while also simplifying alignment and attachments of the nozzles within a support structure. 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 nozzle taught by Karasawa to have a flat portion to enhance structural stability without altering the fundamental operation of the nozzle.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa JP H02261525 A, October 10, 1990 (hereinafter “Karasawa”) in view of Lissoni, as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of Yoshihara U.S. Pub. No. 4591080 A, May 27, 1986 (hereinafter “Yoshihara”).
Regarding claim 12, Karasawa fails to disclose the upstream nozzle includes, in a lower portion, an upstream nozzle flat portion, the downstream nozzle includes, in a lower portion, a downstream nozzle flat portion, and the second chamber inner member includes a flat positioning portion inside the second chamber inner member.
However, Yoshihara teaches a stepped portion 85 (figure 17) having an oval-shaped periphery with a pair of flat portions and adapted for receiving the bottom plate brick 33 (figure 19, column 14; lines 30-34). The flat portion provides a stable reference surface that facilitates predictable flow, while also simplifying alignment and attachments of the nozzles within a support structure. 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 nozzle taught by Karasawa to have a flat portion to enhance structural stability without altering the fundamental operation of the nozzle.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa JP H02261525 A, October 10, 1990 (hereinafter “Karasawa”) in view of Lissoni, as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Yoshihara U.S. Pub. No. 4591080 A, May 27, 1986 (hereinafter “Yoshihara”).
Regarding claim 13, Karasawa fails to disclose the upstream nozzle includes, in a lower portion, an upstream nozzle flat portion, the downstream nozzle includes, in a lower portion, a downstream nozzle flat portion, and the second chamber inner member includes a flat positioning portion inside the second chamber inner member.
However, Yoshihara teaches a stepped portion 85 (figure 17) having an oval-shaped periphery with a pair of flat portions and adapted for receiving the bottom plate brick 33 (figure 19, column 14; lines 30-34). The flat portion provides a stable reference surface that facilitates predictable flow, while also simplifying alignment and attachments of the nozzles within a support structure. 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 nozzle taught by Karasawa to have a flat portion to enhance structural stability without altering the fundamental operation of the nozzle.
Regarding claim 17, Karasawa discloses in figure 6 above a water guide nozzle includes a projection-shaped water guide nozzle joint formed on a downstream side 15, the upstream nozzle includes a projection-shaped first upstream nozzle joint formed on an upstream side 16, the first upstream nozzle joint configured to be joined to the water guide nozzle joint, and a projection-shaped second upstream nozzle joint formed on a downstream side, and the downstream nozzle 15 includes a projection-shaped first downstream nozzle joint formed on an upstream side 16, the first downstream nozzle joint configured to be joined to the second upstream nozzle joint, and a projection-shaped second downstream nozzle joint formed on a downstream side 15.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa JP H02261525 A, October 10, 1990 (hereinafter “Karasawa”) in view of Lissoni, as applied to claim 1 above in further view Oshio et al. JP 2007144250 A, June 14, 2007 (hereinafter “Oshio”).
Regarding claim 19, Karasawa fails to disclose atomizing apparatus, comprising: a raw material tank configured to store the raw material; a liquid supply pump configured to pump the raw material from the raw material tank; a pressure intensifier configured to pressurize the raw material supplied from the liquid supply pump; and the slit chamber.
However, Oshio discloses an atomizing apparatus (figure 5), comprising: a raw material tank 22 (figure 5, paragraph 0003), a liquid supply pump (figure 5 – liquid feed pump 25), a pressure intensifier 23 (figure 5), and the raw material slurry is sucked by a high-pressure plunger reciprocating in a cylinder and discharged at a high pressure (paragraph 0003). The high-pressure raw material slurry sent from the pressure intensifier 23 is jetted as a high-pressure jet stream from a nozzle in the collision chamber 24 (figure 5), and the jet stream collides with a collision target such as a fixed plate or a ball, or the jet streams collide with each other, whereby the raw material particles contained in the raw material slurry are atomized, dispersed, emulsified, or the like (paragraph 0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a tank, pump and a pressure intensifier upstream of the slit chamber to provide continuous supply of fluid while the pressure intensifier increases and stabilizes fluid pressure prior to entry the slit chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Karasawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made over Karasawa in view of Lissoni.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered. The previous rejection relied upon Karasawa for teaching an upstream nozzle disposed on a downstream side of the water guide nozzle. However, in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments emphasizing that the upstream nozzle is “directly” disposed on a downstream side of the water guide nozzle, the rejection is modified herein to include Lissoni.
As newly applied, Lissoni discloses a static flow emulsifier having a series of narrow passages (orifices 4) and expansion compartments (5) arranged sequentially along a fluid flow path. Lissoni teaches that locating an expansion compartment immediately downstream of an orifice or narrow passage such that fluid undergoes abrupt pressure and velocity changes to improve emulsification (figure 1, page 2, lines 12-22; page 5, lines 14-31).
The newly cited reference therefore teaches the positional relationship recited by Applicant’s amendment and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made final. Dependent claims 3-13, and 15-19 remain unpatentable for the reasons set forth in claim 1 rejection above.
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 MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights