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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of flow divider species B, outer inlet section species B, heater species B, and Invention Group I in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 9/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6 and 14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected flow divider species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 5 and 15 both claim “wherein each flow divider of the plurality of helical flow dividers extends one rotation about the axis”, and Claim 6 depends from Claim 5, therefore Claims 5-6 and 14 are all drawn to non-elected species. Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Lines 16-17, “outlet end, and” should be revised to “outlet end; and” to ensure proper punctuation.
In Claim 7 Line 4, “the outer wall” should be revised to “the annular outer wall” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 10 Line 2, “comprising” should be revised to “comprising:” to ensure proper punctuation.
In Claim 10 Lines 8-9, “outlet end, and” should be revised to “outlet end; and” to ensure proper punctuation.
In Claim 15 Line 1 , “the outer wall” should be revised to “the annular outer wall” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, and 16-17 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.
Claims 2, 4, and 7-9 are indefinite because Line 1 of each claim states “The apparatus of claim 1” and there is improper antecedent basis for “The apparatus” in the claim. It is not clear if “The apparatus” applies to the thermal fogger of Claim 1 or something else. Claim 3 depends from Claim 2 and also state “The apparatus”, therefore Claim 3 is also indefinite. For the purpose of examination, each instance of “The apparatus” in Claims 2-4 and 7-9 will be interpreted as “The thermal fogger”.
Claims 11, 13, and 16-17 are indefinite because Line 1 of each claim states “The apparatus of claim 10” and there is improper antecedent basis for “The apparatus” in the claim. It is not clear if “The apparatus” applies to the heated aerosolization nozzle of Claim 10 or something else. Claim 12 that depends from Claim 11, and Claim 15 that depends from Claim 13 also state “The apparatus”, therefore Claims 12 and 15 are also indefinite. For the purpose of examination, each instance of “The apparatus” in Claims 11-13 and 16-17 will be interpreted as “The heated aerosolization nozzle”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, and 16-17 each refer to “The apparatus of claim” however an apparatus was never previously recited in any independent claim. Therefore, the dependent claims do not further limit or contain all of the limitations of an independent claim from which they depend. Applicant may cancel the dependent claims, amend the dependent claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the dependent claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2014/0191057 A1 to Eames et al. (“Eames”) in view of US PGPUB 2019/0351880 A1 to Kambe (“Kambe”).
As to Claim 1, Eames discloses a thermal fogger (See Figs. 5-6, the thermal fogger is made up of #10 and #20, which per Paragraph 0048 can be connected via a pipe) comprising:
an air-supply system (See #10 in Fig. 5) including an air chamber (See an interior of #10 in Fig. 5), a pre-heater configured to heat air in the air chamber (See electrical coils that are in #10 per Paragraph 0044), and a blower in fluid communication with the air chamber (See a lower left component at an inlet to #10 in Fig. 5, which is understood to be a blower per Paragraph 0085) and configured to blow a flow of heated air (#15) through an outlet of the air chamber (See Paragraph 0048 disclosing a pipe connecting #10 to #20);
a chemical injector (#65) coupled to the outlet of the air chamber (See Annotated Fig. 10) and configured to inject a chemical into the flow of heated air to produce an air-chemical mixture (See Paragraph 0048); and
a heated aerosolization nozzle (#20, See Annotated Fig. 10) coupled to the outlet of the air chamber and in fluid communication with the air chamber and the chemical injector to receive the air-chemical mixture (See Annotated Fig. 10 and Paragraph 0048), the heated aerosolization nozzle comprising:
a nozzle body (#90 and #40) shaped to define an inlet end coupled to the outlet of the air chamber (See Annotated Fig. 10), an outlet end (See Annotated Fig. 10) spaced apart axially from the inlet end relative to an axis of the nozzle body (See axis A1 in Annotated Fig. 10), and a plurality of helical aerosolization channels that extend around the axis of the nozzle body (See Annotated Fig. 10, multiple channels C1, C2, and C3 extend around axis A1) the plurality of helical aerosolization channels configured to force the air-chemical mixture flowing into the inlet end of the nozzle body radially outwards into contact with an annular outer wall of the nozzle body (#90) as the air-chemical mixture flows from the inlet end to the outlet end (See Annotated Fig. 10 and Paragraphs 0051-0058), and
a heater (See Paragraph 0067) arranged so that the air-chemical mixture is vaporized as the air-chemical mixture flows through the plurality of helical aerosolization channels from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body and dispersed as a chemical vapor at the outlet end of the nozzle body (See Paragraphs 0048-0050 and 0065 disclosing that vaporized liquid from #65 exits past #40 out as an aerosolized stream #35, thus the air-chemical mixture is heated to an extent that air mixed with liquid is vaporized as it flows through #40 and exits as vapor #35).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the thermal fogger of Eames as applied to Claim 1 above, Eames does not specifically disclose wherein the heater is arranged around the annular outer wall of the nozzle body and configured to heat the annular outer wall of the nozzle body to heat the air-chemical mixture in contact with the annular outer wall of the nozzle body (See Paragraph 0067 disclosing that the heater heats #40 electrically, but a heater around the annular outer wall of the nozzle body is not specifically disclosed. Paragraphs 0047-0048 discloses that #60 is thermal insulation surrounding #90 and that #20 is heated, but does not disclose that #60 is heated).
However, Kambe discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Paragraph 0001) a thermal fogger (#1 in Fig. 1, which per Paragraph 0032 supplies water vapor) comprising a heater (#10) arranged around an annular outer wall of a nozzle body (#12) and configured to heat the annular outer wall of the nozzle body to heat an air-liquid mixture (See Paragraph 0032 disclosing air and water) in contact with the annular outer wall of the nozzle body so that the air-chemical mixture is vaporized (See Paragraphs 0033-0035) as the air-chemical mixture flows through from an inlet end (#11) to an outlet end of the nozzle body (#13) and dispersed as a vapor at the outlet end of the nozzle body (See Paragraph 0035).
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 thermal fogger of Eames as applied to Claim 1 above to include the heater #10 of Kambe arranged around the annular outer wall of the nozzle body of Eames and configured to heat the annular outer wall of the nozzle body of Eames to heat the air-chemical mixture in contact with the annular outer wall of the nozzle body of Eames, since doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating vaporization of fluid to a desired temperature (See Kambe Paragraph 0035) at a rapid rate (See Kambe Paragraph 0069).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the thermal fogger of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 1 above, Eames further discloses wherein the nozzle body includes the annular outer wall that extends around the axis (See Annotated Fig. 10), an inner wall (#45) that extends around the axis and is located radially inward of the annular outer wall to define an aerosolization chamber therebetween (See Annotated Fig. 10), and a plurality of helical flow dividers (#50) that each extend between and interconnect the annular outer wall and the inner wall to divide the aerosolization chamber into the plurality of helical aerosolization channels (See Annotated Fig. 10 and Paragraph 0061).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the thermal fogger of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 1 above, Kambe further discloses wherein the heater is an induction heater (See Kambe Paragraph 0069).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the thermal fogger of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 1 above, Eames further discloses wherein the chemical injected by the chemical injector is a liquid chemical (See Eames Paragraph 0049).
As to Claim 10, Eames discloses a heated aerosolization nozzle (See #20 in Fig. 6 and See Annotated Fig. 10) adapted to aerosolize an air-chemical mixture (See Paragraphs 0048-0050), the heated aerosolization nozzle comprising
a nozzle body (#90 and #40) shaped to define an inlet end (See Annotated Fig. 10), an outlet end (See Annotated Fig. 10) spaced apart axially from the inlet end relative to an axis of the nozzle body (See axis A1 in Annotated Fig. 10), and a plurality of helical aerosolization channels that extend around the axis of the nozzle body (See Annotated Fig. 10, multiple channels C1, C2, and C3 extend around axis A1), the plurality of helical aerosolization channels configured to force the air-chemical mixture flowing into the inlet end of the nozzle body radially outwards into contact with an annular outer wall of the nozzle body (#90) as the air-chemical mixture flows from the inlet end to the outlet end (See Annotated Fig. 10 and Paragraphs 0051-0058), and
a heater (See Paragraph 0067) arranged so that the air-chemical mixture is vaporized as it flows through the plurality of helical aerosolization channels from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body and dispersed as a chemical vapor at the outlet end of the nozzle body (See Paragraphs 0048-0050 and 0065 disclosing that vaporized liquid from #65 exits past #40 out as an aerosolized stream #35, thus the air-chemical mixture is heated to an extent that air mixed with liquid is vaporized as it flows through #40 and exits as vapor #35).
Regarding Claim 10, in reference to the heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames as applied to Claim 10 above, Eames does not specifically disclose wherein the heater is arranged around the annular outer wall of the nozzle body and configured to heat the annular outer wall of the nozzle body to heat the air-chemical mixture in contact with the annular outer wall of the nozzle body (See Paragraph 0067 disclosing that the heater heats #40 electrically, but a heater around the annular outer wall of the nozzle body is not specifically disclosed. Paragraphs 0047-0048 discloses that #60 is thermal insulation surrounding #90 and that #20 is heated, but does not disclose that #60 is heated).
However, Kambe discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Paragraph 0001) a heated aerosolization nozzle (See nozzle system #1 in Fig. 1, which per Paragraph 0032 supplies water vapor) comprising a heater (#10) arranged around an annular outer wall of a nozzle body (#12) and configured to heat the annular outer wall of the nozzle body to heat an air-liquid mixture (See Paragraph 0032 disclosing air and water) in contact with the annular outer wall of the nozzle body so that the air-chemical mixture is vaporized (See Paragraphs 0033-0035) as the air-chemical mixture flows through from an inlet end (#11) to an outlet end of the nozzle body (#13) and dispersed as a vapor at the outlet end of the nozzle body (See Paragraph 0035).
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 heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames as applied to Claim 10 above to include the heater #10 of Kambe arranged around the annular outer wall of the nozzle body of Eames and configured to heat the annular outer wall of the nozzle body of Eames to heat the air-chemical mixture in contact with the annular outer wall of the nozzle body of Eames, since doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating vaporization of fluid to a desired temperature (See Kambe Paragraph 0035) at a rapid rate (See Kambe Paragraph 0069).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 10 above, Eames further discloses wherein the nozzle body includes the annular outer wall that extends around the axis (See Annotated Fig. 10), an inner wall (#45) that extends around the axis and is located radially inward of the annular outer wall to define an aerosolization chamber therebetween (See Annotated Fig. 10), and a plurality of helical flow dividers (#50) that each extend between and interconnect the annular outer wall and the inner wall to divide the aerosolization chamber into the plurality of helical aerosolization channels (See Annotated Fig. 6 and Paragraph 0061).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 10 above, Kambe further discloses wherein the heater is an induction heater (See Kambe Paragraph 0069).
As to Claim 17, in reference to the heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 10 above, Eames further discloses wherein the chemical injected by the chemical injector is a liquid chemical (See Eames Paragraph 0049).
Claims 2-3, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eames in view of Kambe and US Patent 4,053,141 to Gussefeld (“Gussefeld”).
Regarding Claim 2, in reference to the thermal fogger of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 1 above, Eames does not disclose wherein the plurality of helical aerosolization channels have a varying cross-sectional area moving along the axis of the nozzle body from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body (See Annotated Fig. 10, the channels C1, C2, and C3, appear to have a constant cross-sectional area).
However, Gussefeld discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Col. 4 Lines 19-22) a nozzle body (See Fig. 4) comprising a plurality of helical aerosolization channels (See spaces between #16 and #17) that have a varying cross-sectional area moving along an axis of the nozzle body (See Fig. 4 and Col. 4 Lines 4-7) from an inlet end (#18) to an outlet end of the nozzle body (#19).
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 thermal fogger of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 1 above such that the plurality of helical aerosolization channels of Eames have a varying cross-sectional area moving along the axis of the nozzle body of Eames from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body of Eames as taught by Gussefeld, since doing so would yield the predictable result of emitting fluid with a desired flow velocity due to a varying flow cross section (See Gussefeld Col. 4 Lines 10-18).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the thermal fogger of Eames in view of Kambe and Gussefeld as applied to Claim 2 above, Gussefeld further discloses wherein the cross-sectional area of each channel included in the plurality of helical aerosolization channels increases moving along the axis of the nozzle body from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body (See Gussefeld Col. 4 Lines 8-18 and Fig. 4).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the thermal fogger of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 1 above, Eames further discloses wherein the nozzle body has an inlet section that extends from the inlet end (See Annotated Fig. 10), a diverging section that extends axially from the inlet section (See Annotated Fig. 10), and an outlet section that extends axially from the diverging section to the outlet end (See Annotated Fig. 10), and wherein the outer wall has a constant diameter at the inlet section (See Annotated Fig. 10), a varying diameter at the diverging section (See Annotated Fig. 10), and a constant diameter at the outlet section (See Annotated Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 7, Eames does not disclose wherein the constant diameter at the outlet section is greater than the constant diameter at the inlet section (See Annotated Fig. 10, the diameter of the inlet section is greater than the diameter of the outlet section).
However, Gussefeld discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Col. 4 Lines 19-22) a nozzle body (See Fig. 4) comprising an inlet section that extends from an inlet end (#18), a diverging section that extends axially from the inlet section (#14), and an outlet section that extends axially from the diverging section to an outlet end (#19), and wherein an annular outer wall of the nozzle body has a constant diameter at the inlet section (See Fig. 4, the inlet section is tubular), a varying diameter at the diverging section (See Fig. 4 and Col. 4 Lines 5-10), and a constant diameter at the outlet section that is greater than the constant diameter at the inlet section (See Fig. 4, the outlet section is tubular and larger than the inlet section).
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 thermal fogger of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 1 above by using the nozzle body geometry of Gussefeld such that the nozzle body has an inlet section that extends from the inlet end, a diverging section that extends axially from the inlet section, and an outlet section that extends axially from the diverging section to the outlet end, and wherein the annular outer wall has a constant diameter at the inlet section, a varying diameter at the diverging section, and a constant diameter at the outlet section that is greater than the constant diameter at the inlet section, since doing so would yield the predictable result of emitting fluid with a desired flow velocity due to a varying flow cross section (See Gussefeld Col. 4 Lines 10-18).
Regarding Claim 11, in reference to the heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 10 above, Eames does not disclose wherein the plurality of helical aerosolization channels have a varying cross-sectional area moving along the axis of the nozzle body from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body (See Annotated Fig. 10, the channels C1, C2, and C3, appear to have a constant cross-sectional area).
However, Gussefeld discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Col. 4 Lines 19-22) a nozzle body (See Fig. 4) comprising a plurality of helical aerosolization channels (See spaces between #16 and #17) that have a varying cross-sectional area moving along an axis of the nozzle body (See Fig. 4 and Col. 4 Lines 4-7) from an inlet end (#18) to an outlet end of the nozzle body (#19).
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 heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 10 above such that the plurality of helical aerosolization channels of Eames have a varying cross-sectional area moving along the axis of the nozzle body of Eames from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body of Eames as taught by Gussefeld, since doing so would yield the predictable result of emitting fluid with a desired flow velocity due to a varying flow cross section (See Gussefeld Col. 4 Lines 10-18).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames in view of Kambe and Gussefeld as applied to Claim 11 above, Gussefeld further discloses wherein Gussefeld further discloses wherein the cross-sectional area of each channel included in the plurality of helical aerosolization channels increases moving along the axis of the nozzle body from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body (See Gussefeld Col. 4 Lines 8-18 and Fig. 4).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eames in view of Kambe and US PGPUB 2005/0039813 A1 to Dougherty Sr. et al. (“Dougherty”).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 13 above, Eames further discloses wherein the outer wall has a constant diameter (See Annotated Fig. 10, the diameter of the outer wall remains the same up to #75).
Regarding Claim 15, Eames does not disclose wherein the inner wall has a varying diameter moving along the axis of the nozzle body from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body (See Annotated Fig. 10, the diameter of #40 remains constant).
However, Dougherty discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Paragraph 0003), a nozzle body (See Fig. 1A) having an outer wall (#110) that has a constant diameter (See Fig. 1a and Paragraph 0040) and an inner wall (#105) that has a varying diameter moving along an axis of the nozzle body (See Fig. 1a and Paragraph 0039) from an inlet end (#125) to an outlet end of the nozzle body (See an upper end of the nozzle body in Fig. 1A).
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 heated aerosolization nozzle of Eames in view of Kambe as applied to Claim 15 above such that the inner wall has a varying diameter moving along the axis of the nozzle body from the inlet end to the outlet end of the nozzle body, since doing so would yield the predictable result of creating an accelerated vortex flow using an inner wall that can be installed in a simple manner (See Dougherty Paragraphs 0039-0041 and See Dougherty Claim 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
1099
media_image1.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 December 30, 2025