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
Currently claims 1-4 and 6-19 are pending, claim 5 is cancelled, and claims 1, 7-9, and 17-19 are amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: drive mechanism in claims 1, 17, 18, and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 6 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. Claim 6 currently depends from a cancelled claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noakes (U.S. 5,121,884) in view of Kelly (U.S. 4,581,675).
With respect to claims 1 and 17, Noakes discloses a device for electro spraying or electro spinning wherein said device comprises a chamber (chamber of container 14) for housing a fluid to be electro spun or electro sprayed (title, figure 1), said chamber comprising:
i) a non-conductive outlet (outlet formed by 8, 8 being made from plastic and the nozzle is noted being insulated, column 5 rows 25-55, where both 8 and nozzle within are made from insulating materials being non-conductive materials) through which said fluid is dispensed (as fluid is dispensed via the element within 8); and
ii) an associated drive mechanism (the drive mechanism being 20, the vale) for ensuring said fluid is moved towards said outlet (as the valve opens allowing fluid to move through the outlet);
at least one electrically conducting member (32) situated in and/or about said fluid in said chamber (being about the fluid such that it contacts the chamber, which is conductive) or at least one movable electrically conducting member that can be at least partially positioned in said fluid in said chamber when the fluid is to be charged (column 4 rows 45-57). Noakes discloses the chamber and the movable electrically conducting member, but fails to disclose said chamber has a wall including an aperture through which said movable electrically conducting member can be inserted, wherein said wall is provided by at least one apertured and aligned sheet.
Kelly, figures 6-7, discloses the chamber of 16 which has a conducting member 38 that is movable with respect to an aperture (column 11 rows 54-67 moving the electrode within the chamber, column 13 row 60 through column 14 row 5, discloses such gap spacing between the electrodes can change the flow rates obtained by the current, where the movement of the electrode allows then for change in flow within the chamber.
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 moving electrode teaching of Kelly within the chamber via an aperture in the chamber wall into the system of Noakes, to not only apply voltage to the chamber as Noakes teaches, but to vary the amount of current applied by adjust the gap between charging elements within a system to change the flow of fluid in the system.
With respect to claims 6 and 19, Noakes as modified discloses wherein said aperture and said movable electrically conducting member are sized and shaped to ensure fluid is unable to leak from said chamber when the two engage (as understood in Kelly, the moveable element would be sized such that there isn’t leaking and fluid would be supplied via the outlet as desired and not leaking through a sidewall of the device).
With respect to claim 2, Noakes discloses said non-conductive outlet is a nozzle (outlet formed by 8, 8 being made from plastic and the nozzle is noted being insulated, column 5 rows 25-55, where both 8 and nozzle within are made from insulating materials being non-conductive materials).
With respect to claim 4, Noakes discloses conducting member is aligned with a part of the chamber (figure 3, 32 aligned with 14) which is proximal to, but spaced from, said nozzle and so represents a part of the chamber that is upstream of said nozzle (being the back end of the chamber which is upstream from said nozzle and spaced away from said nozzle).
With respect to claim 8, Noakes ad modified by Kelly discloses each aperture is designed to accommodate said movable conducting member (as disclosed by Kelly, the shown aperture allows for the conducive member to move relative thereto).
With respect to claim 9, Noakes as modified by Kelly discloses said sheet of the wall is made from a different material to the rest of the chamber and its nozzle (as the modified element of Noakes is that of the sheet being the wall of 14, which is different from other materials of the chamber such as that of metal foil sac 19 and the nozzle of 20, 14 being conductive but not made of the foil of the chamber at 19).
With respect to claim 11, Noakes discloses the inner part of the chamber wall i.e. the part that makes contact with the fluid is conductive (chamber 14 being conductive, column 4 rows 45-55), and extends from the wall comprising the aperture (taken as the outlet aperture) and the chamber comprises and non-conductive outer surface (the outer surface of 14 being that of the body, which is insulating plastic, column 2 rows 52-56).
With respect to claim 12, Noakes discloses 1wherein said movable conducting member is in the form of a pin (see figure 2b and 3, 32 shown to be a pin, understood as a pin contact).
With respect to claim 13, Noakes discloses said pin is tensioned whereby once the pin is released the tension forces the pin into the chamber or aperture (via tension spring 29 pushing it against 14, see figure 3).
With respect to claim 14, Noakes discloses said chamber is in the form of a cartridge for use in a dispensing device (figures 1-3, where 14 is a container (cartridge) comprising the fluid within is then discharged).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Noakes discloses a fluid, but fails to disclose wherein the fluid is selected from any range of aqueous suspensions, emulsions or solutions, that are electrically conductive and ideally viscous, where the degree of viscosity is inversely related to its conductivity, wherein the fluid is selected from the group comprising: collagen, gelatin, poly(caprolactone) (PCL), polycarbonate (PC),polyethylene terephthalate (PET), poly(etherehterketone) (PEEK), Poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) and polyurethane (PU), Poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO/PEG), poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP), poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) and poly(acrylamide) (PAM), cellulose, cellulose acetate, ethyl cellulose, chitin, chitosan, fibroin, dextran and sodium alginate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize one of the noted claimed fluids being; collagen, gelatin, poly(caprolactone) (PCL), polycarbonate (PC),polyethylene terephthalate (PET), poly(etherehterketone) (PEEK), Poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) and polyurethane (PU), Poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO/PEG), poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP), poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) and poly(acrylamide) (PAM), cellulose, cellulose acetate, ethyl cellulose, chitin, chitosan, fibroin, dextran and sodium alginate, in the system of Noakes, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (in this case the material being sprayed) on the basis of is suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
With respect to claim 18, Noakes in the above rejection of claims 1 and 12-13 discloses a kit of parts comprising: at least one cartridge comprising a chamber for housing a fluid to be electro spun or electro sprayed, said chamber comprising: a. a non-conductive outlet through which said fluid is dispensed; and b. an associated drive mechanism for ensuring said fluid is moved towards said outlet; characterized in that, said chamber also includes at least one electrically conducting member situated in and/or about said fluid in said chamber or at least one movable electrically conducting member that can be positioned in said fluid in said chamber when the fluid is to be charged; and a dispensing device comprising a tensioned pin, wherein said device is adapted to accommodate the at least one cartridge whereby once the pin is released the tension of the spring forces the pin into the chamber or into contact with the conductive member thereby charging the fluid.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noakes in view of Huang (U.S. 2013/0319599).
With respect to claim 3, Noakes discloses a drive mechanism, but fails to disclose said drive mechanism is in the form of a plunger sized and shaped to slide in said chamber.
Huang, paragraph 0033, discloses the use of a plunger to move a liquid through the spraying/spinning apparatus as doing so allows for the liquid to move through the orifice at a controllable flow rate.
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 plunger as disclosed by Huang into a system such as Noakes, as this would provide means for a controllable and metered flow rate of the fluid out of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose said wall is provided by at least two apertured and aligned sheets whereby the aperture in each sheet sits next to the aperture in an adjacent sheet. With regards to claim 10, the sheet is being taken as part of the chamber and would thus be conductive and thus the “chamber and the nozzle is non-conductive and the sheet is part conductive” overcomes the prior art further limiting that of claims 1 and 9 from which it depends
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (06/09/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-4 and 6-19 are pending, claim 5 is cancelled, and claims 1, 7-9, and 17-19 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (06/09/2026).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ amendment of claim 5 into claim 1 and a limitation of claim 7 did not include all of the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 7. Specifically claim requires “apertured and aligned sheets whereby the aperture in each sheet sits next to the aperture in an adjacent sheet” is not found in the prior art. A singular sheet of wall can be understood as the wall itself with a hole therein in which the electrode moves, as the claim language in claim 1 “said wall is provided by at least one apertured and aligned sheet” reads on the wall itself having a sheet with an aperture (being the sheet of the wall itself). Examiner suggests clarifying either amending in claim 7, or clarifying that the chamber itself has a wall that is separate from the wall with the aperture being the aligned sheet with the at least one aperture.
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 JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights