DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 20, 2025 has been entered.
The Applicant’s amendment filed on November 20, 2025 was received. Claims 17-28 were canceled. Claims 29-38 were added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued February 6, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 29-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29 uses of the terms “thereby” or “whereby” in the claim which is improper. It is noted that the courts have held that functional “whereby” statements do not define any structure, and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish over the prior art. See In re Mason, 114 USPQ 127, 44 CCPA 937 (1957).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 29-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 29, in lines 8-9, the claim states “the spray forming head and the converter comprise a full wave resonant structure”. However, this arrangement is not clearly depicted in drawings supplied by the applicant or disclosed in the applicants’ specification
Claims 36-38 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.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the output orifice" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the output surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson (US 2013/0264397).
In regards to claim 29, Erickson teaches an ultrasonic spray coating system comprising:
an ultrasonic converter which converts electrical energy into mechanical energy to produce ultrasonic vibrations (fig. 1; para. 12, 55);
a spray head assembly connected to the ultrasonic converter, the spray head assembly has a spray forming head with a spray forming tip which provides planar opposing side surfaces, the spray forming tip terminates at a planar atomizing surface, where one side of the side surfaces is a feed blade that is perpendicular to the atomizing surface (fig. 1-4; para. 13);
the spray forming head and the ultrasonic converter is capable of full wave resonant structure (fig. 1-5; para. 60-62);
a high frequency alternating generator electrically connected to the ultrasonic converter and produces a controllable level and frequency of electrical energy at an operating frequency of the spray forming head and ultrasonic converter, where the atomizing surface is uniformly displaced in a normal direction by the vibrations and wherein a surface wave component is induced along the feed blade, the surface wave component being in a direction toward the atomizing surface (fig. 1-3; para. 14, 38, 57);
a liquid applicator is provided adjacent to but spaced apart from the feed blade, the liquid applicator comprises a slotted output orifice and provides a liquid orifice which liquid is supplied from the liquid orifice to the feed blade and the liquid flows along the atomizing surface due to the surface wave component and atomizes to a spray (fig. 1-2, 5-6, 10; para. 15, 58);
a controllable gas entrainment mechanism associated with the spray forming head, the gas entrainment mechanism includes a primary gas director (fig. 1d) for directing a stream of gas at a region of the side surface of the spray forming tip opposite the feed blade at an angle less than 90o, where the stream of gas impinges off the region and forms a fan-shaped air pattern in a direction normal to the atomizing surface for affecting and controlling said spray (fig. 1; para. 16, 19, 59, 92).
Erickson teaches the ultrasonic spray coating system produces stable spray pattern (para. 26), where the liquid is supplied from the liquid applicator in a uniform manner to provide a uniform and stable spray from the feed blade of the spray forming head with the spray forming tip (para. 58, 72-73, 75).
Erickson teaches the ultrasonic spray coating system produces a directed air stream from the opposite side of the tip, where gas stream affects the velocity of the spray and increases the width that the ultrasonically produced spray is expanded to form a uniform coating onto the substrate (para. 16, 58, 92-93).
With regards to the spray forming head and the converter comprise a full wave resonant structure; the feed blade is a perpendicular to the atomizing surface, thereby producing a compression wave and wherein a surface wave component of the compression wave is induced on the feed blade surface proximate to the atomizing surface, the surface wave component being in a direction toward the atomizing surface, and the liquid supplied from the output orifice to the feed blade forms a meniscus between the liquid applicator and the feed blade and flows onto the atomizing surface under the influence of the surface wave component, Erickson teaches the structural features of the applicant’s claims, therefore capable of functioning in the same manner
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114).
In regards to claim 30, Erickson teaches the surface wave is induced by the vibrations of the spray forming head, where the surface wave is located at the end of the feed blade proximate to the perpendicular atomizing surface (fig. 1-4; para. 13-14)
In regards to claim 31, Erickson teaches the inside of the liquid supply applicator has a passageway and a slotted output surface from which to deliver liquid (fig. 10; para. 85-86).
Claims 32-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson as applied to claims 29-31 above, and further in view of Ehrenberg (US 5,219,120).
In regards to claims 32 and 36, Erickson teaches the primary gas director applies gas through the air orifice, where the stream of gas impinges on the surface of the spray forming head, the width of the gas stream from the air orifice matches the width of the spray forming head and forms an acute angle (fig. 1; para. 16, 19, 59, 92).
Erickson does not explicitly teach the air orifice is a curved slot.
However, Ehrenberg teaches an air horn (12, primary gas director/gas applicator) which is with an ultrasonic nozzle (16) to affect the flow of fluid. Ehrenberg teaches the air horn comprises an exit opening (24, air orifice) which shaped with a rectangular cross section. (fig. 1-2; col. 2, line 60- col. 3, line 35). Ehrenberg teaches the supply of air provides control to the width of the plume of spray and width of the uniform dispersion of atomized fluid (col.2, lines 25-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the rectangular shaped air horn of Ehrenberg onto the air orifice of Erickson because Ehrenberg teaches it provides a controlling of the width of the atomized stream of fluid (col. 1, lines 50-55).
With regards to the gas stream exiting the gas applicator travels in an expanding radial path toward the surface of the spray forming head and the exiting gas stream has a laminar flow, and the exiting gas stream is redirected as it impinges the surface of the spray forming head to form a laminar expanding air stream in parallel with the surface of the spray forming tip and flowing from the atomizing tip of the spray forming head; the resulting laminar, expanding gas stream entrains a rectilinear sheet of spray drops that are present at the atomizing surface of the spray forming head; the gas stream flows in parallel with the rectilinear sheet of sprayed droplets in an expanding pattern; and the expanding gas stream has a laminar flow and entrains the sprayed drops without substantially mixing with them. These limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed coating system, which the apparatus of Erickson and Ehrenberg would be capable of meeting.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114).
In regards to claim 33, Erickson and Ehrenberg as discussed, where Erickson teaches a syringe pump which is a positive displacement pump, delivers liquid to the spray forming tip at a flow rate independent of an associated resistance to flow created by the liquid guide channels of the liquid applicator (fig. 13; para. 48, 91).
In regards to claim 34, Erickson and Ehrenberg as discussed, where Erickson teaches the surface wave assists in forming the meniscus of liquid between the liquid applicator and the spray forming tip (para. 58).
In regards to claim 35, Erickson and Ehrenberg as discussed, where Erickson teaches the surface wave pumps the liquid from the feed blade to the atomizing surface of the spray forming tip to provide uniform drop density (para 58).
In regards to claim 37, Erickson and Ehrenberg as discussed, where Erickson teaches the gas flow out of the air orifice enables the ultrasonically produced spray to be expanded to a greater expanded width by more than a factor of 2 (para. 19).
In regards to claim 38, Erickson and Ehrenberg as discussed, where Erickson teaches the gas is air (para. 16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed November 20, 2025 do not provide details explaining how the newly presented claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights