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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esaki et al. (2014/0263740) in view of Gallo (2,889,998)
Regarding claim 1, Esaki et al. shows an atomizer (fig 32) for mixing a gas and a liquid to atomize, the atomizer comprising: a gas supply member (115) having a gas flow path and a gas supply port configured to supply a gas (fig 32); and a liquid supply member (222) having a liquid flow path and a liquid supply port (240) configured to supply a liquid, wherein the gas supply member has a gas supply surface (113s) that forms the gas supply port (fig 33), wherein the liquid supply port is open toward an axis orthogonal to the gas supply surface at the gas supply port (fig 32), wherein the liquid supply member has a first inclined surface (270) between the liquid supply port and the gas supply port, wherein the first inclined surface is inclined to leave from the axis as the first inclined surface extends away from the gas supply surface in a first section (fig 32), the first section including the gas flow path and the liquid flow path (fig 32),
But fails to disclose wherein the liquid supply port protrudes from a plane including the first inclined surface.
However, Gallo teaches a liquid supply port (54) extending from a plane including a surface (38) in figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to expend the liquid supply port past the first inclined surface in order to have the liquid supply port lie in a common plane with the gas supply port as taught by Gallo (col 2, liens 60-65)
Regarding claim 2, wherein the liquid supply member has a second inclined surface (280) on an upstream side of the first inclined surface in a gas flow direction, and faces a gas blown out from the gas supply port (fig 32, 33), and wherein in the first section, the second inclined surface is inclined to approach the axis as the second inclined surface extends away from the gas supply surface (fig 32, 33).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface are connected by a ridge line (243T).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the ridge line has a shape approaching an upstream side of the liquid supply port in a liquid flow direction as the ridge line extends away from the gas supply port in a plan view direction of the gas supply port (fig 32 shows this in the same way the applicants figures show it)
Regarding claim 5, wherein the liquid supply member further has a liquid supply surface that forms the liquid supply port (the end surface of 54 of Gallo).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the liquid supply surface extends substantially parallel to the axis at the gas supply port (Gallo shows this and this will be true in the above combination).
Regarding claim 7, the above combination fails to show wherein a maximum measurement of an opening of the liquid supply port in a lateral direction orthogonal to the first section is larger than a maximum measurement of the opening of the liquid supply port in a longitudinal direction intersecting with the lateral direction.
However, figure 17 of Esaki et al. does teach an elongated oval slot opening for the liquid supply port.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use the elongated oval slot opening for the liquid supply port as shown in figure 17 of Esaki et al. in the device of Esaki et al. as modified above, in order to have a bigger opening to suck more fluid into the gas stream.
Regarding claim 8, the above combination fails to show wherein a maximum measurement of an opening of the gas supply port in a lateral direction orthogonal to the first section is larger than a maximum measurement of the opening of the gas supply port in a longitudinal direction intersecting with the lateral direction.
However, figure 21 of Esaki et al. does teach an elongated oval slot opening for the gas supply port.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use the elongated oval slot opening for the gas supply port as shown in figure 21 of Esaki et al. in the device of Esaki et al. as modified above, in order to have a bigger opening to provide more gas flow.
Regarding claim 10, wherein the gas supply member and the liquid supply member are separate members (fig 32).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esaki et al. (2014/0263740) as modified by Gallo (2,889,998) above, further in view of De Rose et al. (2012/0160874)
Regarding claim 9, Esaki et al. as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose a piezoelectric pump configured to supply the gas to the gas supply port.
However, De Rosa et al. teaches an atomizer that uses a piezoelectric pump (24) to supply fluid under pressure [0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use the piezoelectric pump of De Rosa et al. in the above combination in order to pressurize the gas being supplied to the gas supply port with a miniature pump as taught by De Rosa et al. [0054].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/5026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that Gallo clearly teaches a liquid supply port (54) that extends from a plane including a surface 38. The examiner is simply using Gallo to teach a liquid supply port extending from a surface and modifying Esaki with that teaching. The only limitation that Esaki fails to teach in claim 1 is the liquid supply port extending from a plane including a surface. Gallo teaches this feature, so the examiner is modifying Esaki with Gallo in order to have the liquid supply port lie in a common plane with the gas supply port as taught by Gallo (col 2, liens 60-65).
The examiner also notes that part of surface 270 is located between the liquid supply port and the gas supply port. Figure 33 shows the portions of surface 270 that are below the circular outlet 240 are located between the liquid supply port and the gas supply port. See the figure below for clarity.
Additionally, figure 28 of Esaki teaches this limitation as well.
PNG
media_image1.png
461
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 6/3/2026
Prosecution Insights