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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Taiwan on June 15, 2023. It is again noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the TW112206126 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed May 4, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-11 remain pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on May 4, 2026 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Minor Claim Amendment Suggestions by Examiner
The following amendments are recommended to improve clarity of the claims. The claims have been examined on the merits including the suggested changes below.
In claim 7, on line 1, “a back” should be replaced with --the back-- (Note: claim 1, as amended in the aforementioned reply, now provides proper antecedent basis for “the back of the movable bracket”).
In claim 8, on line 3, --liquid-absorbing -- should be inserted between “the ” (first occurrence) and “sheet” (Note: this suggestion is to clearly differentiate the two distinct “sheet” elements introduced in claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 Sidawi et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0043048.
As to claim 1, Sidawi (see Figs. 1-6) shows an atomizing unit for installation in an atomizing device, comprising: a movable bracket (120; and the un-numbered element located within “cavity 118” and attached to the back of “120”, as shown in Fig. 1) comprising a fixed component (the aforementioned “un-numbered element”) attachable to a back of the movable bracket; a vibratory element (119) on the movable bracket comprising a vibratable sheet structured and arranged to produce vibrations when electrified (see paragraphs [0018] and [0020]); and a liquid-absorbing sheet (117) on a back of the vibratory element structured and arranged to contact the fixed component (see again, Fig. 1) and to contact a wick (115) of the atomizing device when the atomizing unit is installed in the atomizing device. As to the recited “movable bracket”, it is noted that the term “movable” with respect to this “bracket” element in claim 1 lacks any positively-recited structural limitations in the claim which facilitate its apparent ability to move. Thus, the descriptive term “movable” can reasonably be interpreted as merely a capability of the bracket to move in some way. With respect to that reasonable interpretation, in the broadest sense, the overall device within which element “120” is installed is movable, as the overall device of Sidawi (or just “cartridge 100” itself) is capable of being moved, which in turn moves the bracket. In a more limiting sense, element “120” is disclosed as a “piezoelectric vibrator”, which is electrically energized to vibrate (which in turn vibrates vibratory element/sheet “119”). Since vibrations are a form of movement, then the bracket is movable in this sense as well.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidawi et al., in view of Akitsu et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0292492.
As to claim 2, Sidawi shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, however Sidawi is silent as to disclosing an exemplary material from which the vibratable sheet is made. Thus, Sidawi is silent as to the vibratable sheet comprising a metal material.
It should be noted, absent an expressed teaching of at least one exemplary material from which the vibratable sheet of Sidawi is made, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine a material type for creating the vibratable sheet of Sidawi. Thus, Akitsu (see Figs. 1-7) shows a piezoelectric-type fluid atomizing device having a similar function and effect as compared to that of Sidawi, with the device including an atomizing unit (inclusive of 6) which includes a vibratory element (44; see paragraph [0036]), comprising a vibratable sheet which is made of a metal material (see paragraph [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a metal material, as taught by Akitsu, for creating the vibratable sheet of Sidawi, since Sidawi is silent as to any exemplary materials from which the vibratable sheet may be made, and Akitsu provides a teaching to use a metal material for a similar vibratable sheet which is used in a similar manner in a similarly functioning device, and 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 choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidawi et al., in view of Hasik et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0086220.
As to claims 3 and 4, Sidawi shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, however Sidawi is silent as to disclosing an exemplary material from which the liquid-absorbing sheet is made. Thus, Sidawi is silent as to the liquid-absorbing sheet comprising non-woven fabric (as recited in claim 3) or cotton (as recited in claim 4).
It should be noted, absent an expressed teaching of at least one exemplary material from which the liquid-absorbing sheet of Sidawi is made, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine a material type for creating the liquid-absorbing sheet of Sidawi. Thus, Hasik (see, at least Fig. 20) shows a piezoelectric-type fluid atomizing device (50) including an atomizing unit (126) having a similar function and effect as compared to that of Sidawi, with the atomizing unit including a liquid-absorbing sheet (not shown, but clearly described in paragraph [0076]) on a back of a corresponding vibratory element (110), which is structured and arranged to contact a corresponding wick (188) of the atomizing device, wherein the liquid-absorbing sheet may be made from one of several exemplary materials, including at least one exemplary non-woven fabric and cotton (see again, paragraph [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-woven fabric or cotton, as taught by Hasik, for creating the liquid-absorbing sheet of Sidawi, since Sidawi is silent as to any exemplary materials from which the liquid-absorbing sheet may be made, and Hasik provides a teaching to use either of a non-woven fabric or cotton for a similar liquid-absorbing sheet which is used in a similar manner in a similarly functioning device, and 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 choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are allowed.
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see the section under “35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103” on pages 5-6 of the response filed May 4, 2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant essentially asserts that claim 1, as amended in the aforementioned response, sets forth a combination of features which is not taught or suggested by the prior art to Sidawi et al. (US 2018/0043048). As set forth above in paragraph 7 of the instant Office action, this Office does not agree.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Kawashima et al. and Shave et al. are cited as of interest.
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 DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights