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. Status of Claims Current claims 1-2 and 7-10 are pending, claim 1 is amended, and claims 3-6 are cancelled. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 1-2, 7 -10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (U.S. 2024/0238554) in view of Tan (U.S. 2020/0009600) and Kim (U.S. 2023/0084663). With respect to claim 1 , Zou discloses pure essential oil atomization device (figures 1-3) , comprising a bottle body (bottle 30/300) , a housing (20) , a guide (50) , and an ultrasonic atomization sheet (41) , wherein the bottle body is provided therein with a pure essential oil chamber (chamber within bottle 30 holding the oil) , and is provided with an opening communicated with the pure essential oil chamber (opening at top of 30/300) ; the housing is detachably connected to the bottle body (as noted by the threads of the bottle) , and covers the opening (as seen in figures 2-5) ; the housing is provided therein with an atomizing chamber (figure 2, 113) , and is provided with an atomization outlet communicated with the atomizing chamber (outlet going from 115 to then outlet at 23) ; the ultrasonic atomization sheet is provided in the atomizing chamber (as shown, 41 is within and at the bottom of 113) , and comprises an atomizing plane (the plane on which 41 is located) ; and the guide comprises one end attached to the atomizing plane (as shown in figure 5) and surrounding a center of the atomizing plane (as shown in figure 5, taking the plane to be that where 41 and 50 meet, and thus 50 surrounds the bottom side of the plane)) , and the other end extending through the housing to the pure essential oil chamber (as shown in figures 2-5), wherein projection of the guide cotton on the atomizing plane surrounds the center of the atomizing plane, and a central angle of an arc of the projection is N 0 , (disclosing, figure 5 and 9, 360 degrees), the guide cotton comprises a first guide cotton (the cotton of 50 about 51) and a second guide cotton (the guide of 50 that extend within the container) connected to each other (as seen in figures 5 and 9) ; the first guide cotton is attached to the atomizing plane (as seen in figure 5) , and the second guide cotton extends through the housing (as seen in figures 2-5) to the pure essential oil chamber (as sown in figures 2-5) ; and the second guide cotton is hollow (as the two elements of 50 of the second guide to not have cotton within them, and thus form two arms with a hollow middle) , the guide cotton is provided at a point of wave nodes of the atomizing plane (as the noted guide cotton, 50, is at the plane level against 41, as 41 vibrates/oscillates, it forms a wave, that would then impact and be at a point where 50 is located) . Zou fails to disclose the guide is cotton, that N is equal to 180 degrees, the first guide cotton is made of a glass fiver guide material or a porous ceramic guide material . Zou discloses a temperature of the atomization sheet (as it heats due to vibration), but fails to disclose an atomization temperature of the ultrasonic atomization sheet is T 0 C, 80≤T≤160. Tan, paragraphs 0008 and 0013, discloses the wick comprising cotton, ceramic, or glass fibers where cotton is used because it does not melt and high temperature materials such as nylon and glass can be used with vibrating transducer because the friction will not cause them to melt. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize cotton (and other materials) as disclosed by Tan as the guide element materials (the wick) in Zou, allowing for the wick to provide fluid to the vibrating element and prevent the wick from melting. Kim, paragraph 0092, discloses the liquid delivery means 205 (shown being the element of the liquid delivery means which is adjacent to the vibration accommodation portion 204) being made of ceramic fiber, glass fiber, and porous ceramic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the material for the wick elements associated with the atomizing plane to be made from glass fiber or porous ceramic as disclosed by Kim into the system of Zou, doing so would utilize known materials to be used in the liquid delivery of the system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize N at 180 degree angle, and thus a shape of a semi-circle for the guide cotton , since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al. , 3 USPQ 23. Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any criticality of the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a temperature of the atomization sheet equal to and between 80 and 160 degrees Celsius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)). Such a temperature would have a resulting effect on the fluid from the wick and atomizing it into a desired droplet and mist spray, at the desired consistency of said spray to then be transported by the airflow of Zou. With respect to claim 2 , Zou discloses the atomizing plane is circular (as shown in figures 5 and 9) with a radius of R mm (being the radius taken of the plane on which 41 and 51 are on, as they are abutting one another) ; and a maximum distance of L mm (being the distance of 51 from its outer edge to that of a middle) and a minimum distance of G mm between projection of the guide cotton on the atomizing plane and the center of the atomizing plane (paragraph 0054, being the distance of the inside of 51 to that of the middle, as shown being half of the .5-5mm range claimed) , but fails to disclose specifically 0.3 ≤ G/R ≤ L/R ≤0 .9 (as the noted plane can be taken to be a size that satisfies that relationship, and L is always larger then G, and L cannot be R, as R is larger then L) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a given radius of the plane to be such that 0.3 ≤ G/R ≤ L/R ≤0 .9 is satisfied, since the hole within the wick (guide element) is a range of .5-5mm, the range given changes for what L and G are and because R is taken as a plane (and not specifically any given structure), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)). With respect to claim 4 , Zou as modified discloses the atomization, and a temperature of the atomization sheet (as it heats due to vibration), but fails to disclose an atomization temperature of the ultrasonic atomization sheet is T 0 C, 80≤T≤160. With respect to claim 7 , Zou as modified discloses the opening of the bottle body is oriented upwards (as shown) ; the housing covers the opening from top to bottom and is screwed to the bottle body (as shown) ; and a bottom part of the housing is provided with an air hole (air hole at 22 where air comes in noted also at where 213 meets) that communicates the atomizing chamber with the pure essential oil chamber (as shown in figures 2 and 7) . With respect to claim 8 , Zou as modified discloses the housing is further provided therein with an air chamber (the chamber of the air coming in from 22) , and is further provided with an air inlet communicated with the air chamber (air inlet at 22) ; the atomizing chamber is communicated with the atomization outlet through the air chamber (as shown in figures 2 and 5) ; and the atomizing plane is oriented towards the air chamber (as the atomizing plane is receiving air from the air chamber that starts at 22, see figure 2) . With respect to claim 9 , Zou discloses a cross-section of a wall of the air chamber is circular (22 is circular, see figures 2, 7, and 9) . With respect to claim 10 , Zou discloses the atomization outlet (23) is provided at a top part of the housing (as shown in figures 2 and 5) ; the air inlet (22) is provided at a side wall of the housing (as shown in figure 7) ; and the air inlet and the atomization outlet are respectively arranged on left and right sides of the housing (as shown in figures 2-7) . Response to Arguments/Amendments The Amendment filed ( 03/12/2026 ) has been entered. Current claims 1-2 and 7-10 are pending, claim 1 is amended, and claims 3-6 are cancelled. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated ( 12/22/2025 ). Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants first argument is utilizing N at 180 degree angle, and thus a shape of a semi-circle for the guide cotton would not have been a mere changing the shape or form of an article . Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the prior art (U.S. 2024/0238554) figures 5 and 10, discloses that the N would be a full circle surrounding that of 51 within. Figure 5, shows that 50s outer surface is within that of a circle, showing the top of 50 to essentially be a disc. Changing this from a disc shape to a half disc shape is the noted change of shape rejection happening. Applicant failed to tie the shape (N being at 180 degrees) of a semi-circle to any criticality in their specification. Paragraph 0035 of applicant’s specification discloses the criticality for both the 180 and 360 degrees , and thus that of a partial and full circle, and does not give criticality specifically to one instance over the other. This is understood in the following paragraph 0036, where the area is limited (in view of figures 3 and 4), in which a whole is shown in the middle of the device (while still showing a full circle). Examiner notes the citation in paragraph 0042 is directed towards the material being used. [0042] The second guide cotton 32 is made of a quick guide material that can quickly transfer the pure essential oil to the first guide cotton 31, ensuring stable pure essential oil supply. Specifically, the second guide cotton 32 can be made of a pure cotton material. Further argument “and if the area of the guide cotton in contact with the ultrasonic atomization sheet is too large, it is easy to cause the guide cotton to be burnt making the service life thereof decrease.” Is not found in the specification. Applicant further argues that the center region of the ultrasonic atomization sheet should be avoided, which is shown in the prior art, as 50 has the hole 51 at its center. Applicant further makes arguments to the contact between the guide cotton and that of the atomization plane, however none of the arguments are drawn towards the different between a guide cotton that is circular in shape versus half circular in shape. Rather the disclosure includes both of these shapes together without a distinct that the half circle is an improvement over the circle, rather a focus on there being a hole in the middle to decrease the center contact area (there being a noted hole in the prior art). Applicant further argues that Zou teaches away from the technical solution of the present disclosure. Patentability is not directed towards the technical solution within the disclosure, but in the claimed limitations. Applicant further argues the different materials being used, examiner notes the Tan and Kim are utilized to teach the two material wicking structure and why both materials would be obvious to implement within the element 50 of Zou. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the guide cotton is provided at a point of wave nodes of the atomizing plane. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The wave node would be the center plane in which the atomizing plane is located (the antinodes are the peaks/troughs of the wave). The guide contact is abutting and touching the atomization element on the given plane shown where there is no wave, being the plane that the wave is at its “node” and thus the guide cotton is provided at a point of wave nodes of the atomizing plane. This plane is understood as being the plane in which the guide cotton comes in contact with the atomizing plane without vibration occurring, being the base node of the element before the vibration causes a wave to form in the vibrating element. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the temperature between 80 and 160 degrees for the atomization sheet, now that it would be obvious to utilize such a range. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as such a range would be the discovering and utilizing of an optimum/workable range in the device to effectively atomize the material (essential oil) into a mist (see MPEP 2144.05(II-A)). What is understood that such a range would allow for a desired consistency of said spray to then be transported by the airflow found in Zou. Applicants’ disclosure ties the increased temperature to decreasing viscosity, which is well known in fluid dynamics that increasing temperature decreases viscosity. Such application of the range of 80 to 160 degrees C allows for an optimized fluid flow from the wick to the atomization plate to deliver a desired spray. Such range is the utilization of the optimum range in the device to result in the optimum resulting atomization, which under MPEP 2144.05(II-A) is not patentable. Applicant argues that modifying its shape, material, and placement position as done in this application also yields unexpected technical effects. Examiner indicates the above rejection discloses the claimed limitations, it is unclear what “unexpected technical effects” does with respect to patentability . It could be understood “unexpected results” can be inferred, but the prior art as shown above discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as they are claimed. Conclusion All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0397 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-5pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arthur Hall can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /JOSEPH A GREENLUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752