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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 3 and 6 are original. Claims are 1-2, and 4-5 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the limitation " wherein the rotating speed N1 of the first atomization disk is ∈[15,000 rpm, 30,000 rpm]'' in lines 1-2 of claim 6. However, it is suggested to amend to - wherein the rotating speed N1 of the first atomization disk is greater than or equal to 15,000 rpm and less than or equal to 30,000 rpm-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In order to determine compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Federal Circuit developed a framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is "reasonable" or is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The following Wands factors are in regards to claim 1.
With regards to (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the inventor has failed to describe the units of the equation
α
=
5.87
×
10
-
9
×
N
2
-
2.18
×
10
-
4
×
N
+
2.15
nor the units to arrive at a unitless
α
.
With regards to (H), the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would need to conduct undue experimentation to find the correct unit convention.
With regards to (E), the level of predictability in the art, the disclosed model is unpredictable with
α
is equal to 2.15 when N = 0, minimized to an
α
of approximately 0.126, and then continues to rise to infinity for higher levels of N. Additionally, this model has only been tested for a small set of parameters shown in Table 3 and Figure 3 and one of ordinary skill in the art would need to conduct undue experimentation to see if this model works with systems operating at different conditions, such as high values of N or other geometric factors of the atomization device.
Therefore claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
The following Wands factors are in regards to claim 2.
With regards to (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the inventor has failed to describe the units of the diameter d1 of the first atomization disk, the liquid density ρ, the liquid flow quantity Q, and the rotating speed N1 of the first atomization disk, nor how at least one of the parameters adjust the target particle size DF of the target fog droplets based on the preset model.
With regards to (A) the breadth of the claims, the claim recites “wherein the spraying parameters comprise at least one of the diameter d1 of the first atomization disk, a liquid density ρ, a liquid flow quantity Q, and a rotating speed N1 of the first atomization disk,” but the specification only provides one example using all of the parameters.
Claims 3-6 depend from claim 2, therefore claims 3-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
The following Wands factors are in regards to claim 3.
With regards to (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the inventor has failed to provide any units for the following equation
D
1
=
k
1
×
(
ρ
×
Q
)
k
2
(
N
1
×
d
1
)
k
3
With regards to (H), the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would need to conduct undue experimentation to find the correct unit convention.
The following Wands factors are in regards to claim 4.
With regards to (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the inventor has failed to provide any units for the following equation,
D
1
=
k
5
×
(
ρ
×
Q
)
k
2
(
N
1
×
d
1
)
k
3
×
(
h
×
n
)
k
4
,except for n (quantity of guide grooves).
With regards to (H), the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would need to conduct undue experimentation to find the correct unit convention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation “adjusting, based on the spraying parameters and a preset model, a rotating speed N of the second atomization disk to a target rotating speed for outputting the target fog droplets with the target particle size DF” in lines 9-12 of claim 1, and then further describes “wherein the preset model is a product of an initial fog droplet particle size D1 output by the first atomization disk and the secondary atomization factor α; and the secondary atomization factor α is determined by the following formula:
α
=
5.87
×
10
-
9
×
N
2
-
2.18
×
10
-
4
×
N
+
2.15
” in lines 9-17 of claim 1, however it is not clear how the “target rotating speed” is related to the preset model. Does the computation of “a product of an initial fog droplet particle size D1 output by the first atomization disk and the secondary atomization factor α” (D1* α) equal the target output speed, for example
[
(
D
1
*
α
)
=
a
t
a
r
g
e
t
r
o
t
a
t
i
n
g
s
p
e
e
d
]
, or something else. Furthermore, certain claimed parameters are not given units, namely a target particle size DF, a rotating speed N, a target rotating speed, an initial fog droplet particle size D1, and a secondary atomization factor α, and the coefficients used in the computation of α are not dimensionless and further it is unclear as to what to input into the equations because different units would lead to different results. Additionally, it is not clear how the spraying parameters relate to the preset model or secondary atomization factor in any way.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “adjusting the spraying parameters, and adjusting the target particle size DF of the target fog droplets based on the preset model, wherein the spraying parameters comprise at least one of the diameter d1 of the first atomization disk, a liquid density ρ, a liquid flow quantity Q, and a rotating speed N1 of the first atomization disk.” In lines 2-6 of claim 2. Firstly, it is not clear as do how the spraying method adjusts the target particle size DF, and how it relates to the preset model when the target particle size DF is the desired output of claim 1, as shown in the following citation “adjusting, based on the spraying parameters and a preset model, a rotating speed N of the second atomization disk to a target rotating speed for outputting the target fog droplets with the target particle size DF”(underline for emphasis) as recited in lines 10-11 of claim 1. Additionally, it is not clear how the parameters, namely the diameter d1 of the first atomization disk, a liquid density ρ, a liquid flow quantity Q, and a rotating speed N1 of the first atomization disk, relate to the preset model. Additionally, no units are supplied for the above parameters. Additionally, no liquid is claimed and thus it us clear as to what the liquid density ρ, and liquid flow quantity are.
Claims 3-6 depend on claim 2, therefore claims 3-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the initial fog droplet particle size D1 is determined by the following formula:
D
1
=
k
1
×
(
ρ
×
Q
)
k
2
(
N
1
×
d
1
)
k
3
wherein a parameter k1 is a first empirical coefficient, a parameter k2 is a second empirical coefficient, and a parameter k3 is a third empirical coefficient” in lines 2-5 of claim 3. No units for the above parameters are provided and therefore it is unclear as to what to input into the equations because different units would lead to different results. Additionally, the empirical coefficients (k1,, k2, and k3) do not describe any, value, range or unit for determining the value of the empirical coefficients and are therefore indefinite because the scope of the terms (k1,, k2, and k3) are not understood when read in light of the specification. “ Even if the specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim, a rejection is proper if the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. While, as a general proposition, broadening modifiers are standard tools in claim drafting in order to avoid reliance on the doctrine of equivalents in infringement actions, when the scope of the claim is unclear a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is proper. See In re Wiggins, 488 F. 2d 538, 541, 179 USPQ 421, 423 (CCPA 1973).” See MPEP § 2173.05(b)-I.
Similar rejection applies to claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “respectively adjusting the rotating speed N1 of the first atomization disk and the rotating speed N of the second atomization disk to respective target rotating speeds based on the diameter d1 of the first atomization disk, the liquid density ρ, the liquid flow quantity Q, and the preset model, to output the target fog droplets with the target particle size DF.” in lines 2-6 of claim 5. Firstly, the limitation "respective target rotating speeds" has insufficient antecedent basis. Secondly it is not clear if the “respective target rotating speeds” are related to “the target rotating speed of the second atomization disk” in lines in lines 9-10 of claim 1. Thirdly it is unclear how the rotating speed N1 of the first atomization disk is determined. Furthermore, it is unclear how , d1, ρ, and Q, and the preset model relate together relate the target particle size DF. Additionally, d1, ρ, and Q do not provide any units. Additionally, no liquid is claimed for the terms ρ, and Q.
Regarding claims 1-6, in lieu of the numerous indefinite issues cited above, the claims need clarification before a suitable art rejection may be applied. See MPEP 2173.06.II "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 19, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights