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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Power et al. (US Pat No 7,771,642 B2).
Re claim 1, Power et al. show an atomization module (Fig. 12), comprising:
a base (see annotated figure), wherein the base includes a support portion (sections of 1020 & 1012 in annotated figure) and an outer annular portion (sections of 1212 in annotated figure), the support portion has a first opening (through 1012), the outer annular portion surrounds the support portion;
an auxiliary fixing member (1208) disposed on a surface (surfaces of 1020) of the support portion (see annotated figure), wherein the auxiliary fixing member has a second opening (through 1208), and the second opening is opposite to the first opening (through 1012);
an atomization member (1016) disposed between the support portion (see annotated figure) and the auxiliary fixing member (see annotated figure);
a piezoelectric element (1008) disposed on a surface (surface of 1212) of the outer annular portion (see annotated figure), wherein the piezoelectric element (1008) and the atomization member (1016) are disposed on a same side of the base;
a conductive member (Fig. 3, 116) electrically connected (col. 6, lines 51-55) to the piezoelectric element; and
a waterproof member (1204; col. 2, lines 42-62), wherein the waterproof member at least partially covers the piezoelectric element (1006);
wherein the base (see annotated figure), the auxiliary fixing member (1208), the atomization member (1016), and the piezoelectric element (1008) are stacked along a direction (see annotated figure; applicant’s specification does not utilize or define the term “stacked” and applicant’s figures demonstrate a “stack” that conforms to the definition of ‘a pile of objects’ to which the named components in Power et al. are also “stacked” along a “direction” in the same manner that applicant’s disclosed components are “stacked” along a ”direction”), and the support portion (see annotated figure) protrudes relative to the outer annular portion (see annotated figure) along the direction, such that the surface (surfaces of 1020) of the support portion is higher than the surface (surface of 1012) of the outer annular portion along the direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Power et al. (US Pat No 7,771,642 B2) in view of Hua et al. (CN 208912405 U).
Re claim 2, Power et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention including a conductive member to connect to one or more electrodes but do not explicitly teach the conductive member has two connection portions, two electrode portions are disposed on a surface of the piezoelectric element, and the two connection portions are respectively and electrically connected to the two electrode portions.
Hua et al. show a piezoelectric element (Fig. 1, 01) including a conductive member (Hua – 06) that has two connection portions (Hua – 66, 67), two electrode portions (Hua – 04, 05) are disposed on a surface of the piezoelectric element, and the two connection portions (Hua – 66, 67) are respectively and electrically connected to the two electrode portions (Hua – 04, 05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the piezoelectric element of Power et al. include the conductive member of Hua et al. to provide a load voltage (Hua – abstract).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Power et al. (US Pat No 7,771,642 B2) in view of Hua et al. (CN 208912405 U) and further in view of Litherland (US Pub No 2002/0162551 A1).
Re claim 3, Power et al. in view of Hua et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach an inclined support surface is disposed between the support portion and the outer annular portion, the inclined support surface has an inclination angle relative to a horizontal plane, and the inclination angle ranges between 20 degrees and 80 degrees.
However, Litherland shows an inclined support surface (Fig. 1, 20) is disposed between the support portion (22) and the outer annular portion (18), the inclined support surface (20) has an inclination angle relative to a horizontal plane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base of Power et al. as modified by Hua et al. include an inclined support surface as taught by Litherland to mechanically amplify the radial dilation of the piezoelectric ring (Litherland – paragraph 0018).
Power et al. as modified by Hua et al. and Litherland does not teach the inclination angle ranges between 20 degrees and 80 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle range between 20 degrees and 80 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the shape of the base which achieves the recognized result of mechanically amplifying the radial dilation of the piezoelectric ring (Litherland – paragraph 0018), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed range.
Re claim 4, Power et al. as modified by Hua et al. and Litherland show the waterproof member (Power – 1204) is disposed on the outer annular portion (see annotated figure), and completely covers the piezoelectric element (Power – 1008) and the two connection portions (Hua – 05, 06).
Re claim 5, Power et al. as modified by Hua et al. and Litherland show the waterproof member (Power – 1204) is further attached to the inclined support surface (Litherland – 20; as Power demonstrates 1204 extending out to atomization member 1016, it would also extend to an inclined portion added between the annotated annular portion and the support portion).
Re claim 6, Power et al. as modified by Hua et al. and Litherland disclose the waterproof member is formed by plating or coating (Power – col. 9, lines 32-34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument directed toward the limitation “stacked along a direction,” applicant states that “the support portion protrudes relative to the outer annular portion in a direction that is not aligned with the stacking of actuator 1012, the second layer 1208, the aerosolizing element 1016, and the vibratory element 1008.” However, no such direction is specified in applicant’s disclosure nor is any ‘stacking’ described in applicant’s disclosure that would provide any specificity to what is claimed. As such, as long as the prior art components can be described as ‘a pile of objects’ which is a general definition of the term “stack” and how one might describe what is demonstrated in applicant’s own figures given that disclosed auxiliary fixing member 2 is not aligned with any other component other than the support portion 11 of the base then the prior art components can be called stacked and furthermore, as demonstrated in the annotated figure above, the components are stacked in a direction demonstrated by the dashed arrow.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
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 STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights