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 § 112
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 2-7, 18 and 19 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “turbine” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “impeller,” while the accepted meaning is “a rotary engine actuated by the reaction or impulse or both of a current of fluid (such as water, steam, or air) subject to pressure and usually made with a series of curved vanes on a central rotating spindle.” Merriam-Webster.com. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 10, 14 and 17 are 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. The terms “configured for,” in line 1 of claim 1 clearly indicated that the liquid is not a positively recited limitation, in other words, the liquid is not a part of the invention. However, claim 10 positively recited that the liquid comprises cells or medicines. Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to claim 17. 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. Similar rejection applies to claim 14 where claim 14 positively recited that wherein an amount of the liquid injected into the pipe unit ranges from 0.1 to 2 ml.
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(s) 1, 8 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ivri (US9375739).
With respect to claim 1, Ivri discloses a spraying device (Figs. 1-7, especially the embodiment in Figs. 1 and 4-5A) configured for (capable of) spraying a liquid (131) onto a region to be sprayed, comprising: a gas pressure source (120); a spraying head (AT 115), adapted to (capable of) spray the liquid in an annular pattern (caused by the annular supply passage 50 and grooves 46); and a pipe unit (from 120 to 115 and from 130 to 115), connected between the gas pressure source and the spraying head for providing the liquid to the spraying head; wherein when the liquid is located within the pipe unit, the gas pressure source provides a first gas pressure (4.16 bar) to transport the liquid located in the pipe unit to the spraying head; when the liquid reaches to the spraying head, the gas pressure source provides a second gas pressure (16.6 bar) to spray the liquid in the annular pattern through the spraying head onto the region to be sprayed.
With respect to claim 8, Ivri discloses the spraying device according to claim 1, wherein a pressure value (4.16 bar) of the first gas pressure is lower than a pressure value of the second gas pressure (16.6 bar).
With respect to claim 11, Ivri discloses the spraying device according to claim1, further comprising a tube joint (downstream of 117 and 113. Fig. 1), wherein the pipe unit comprises a first tube (downstream of 117) and a second tube (with 114), the first tube is communicating with the gas pressure source, the second tube is connected to the spraying head, and the tube joint is communicated between the first tube and the second tube, and the liquid is adapted to enter the pipe unit through the tube joint.
With respect to claim 12, Ivri discloses the spraying device according to claim 11, wherein the tube joint is a three-way tube or a directional valve (113 and 114).
With respect to claim 13, Ivri discloses a spraying method (Figs. 1-7, especially the embodiment in Figs. 1 and 4-5A), adapted to (capable of) spray a liquid (131) onto a region to be sprayed, comprising: providing the spraying device according to claim 1; injecting a liquid (from 130) into the pipe unit; wherein when the liquid is located in the pipe unit, the gas pressure source provides a first gas pressure (4.16 bar) to transport the liquid located in the pipe unit to the spraying head; and when the liquid is reaches to the spraying head, the gas pressure source provides a second gas pressure (16.6 bar) to (capable of) spray the liquid in an annular pattern (caused by the annular supply passage 50 and grooves 46) through the spraying head to the region to be sprayed.
With respect to claim 14, Ivri discloses the spraying method according to claim 13, wherein an amount of the liquid injected into the pipe unit ranges from 0.1 to 2 ml (at the end of the pump stroke).
With respect to claim 15, Ivri discloses the spraying method according to claim 13, wherein a pressure value (4.16 bar) of the first gas pressure is lower than a pressure value (16.6 bar) of the second gas pressure.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-7, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivri in view of Reale (US 10099235).
With respect to claim 2, Ivri discloses the spraying device according to claim 1, wherein the spraying head comprises: a first swirl chamber (around insert post 26. Figs. 4A-4B), communicating with the pipe unit; a fluid outlet (of 44. Fig. 5); a second swirl chamber (42 and 46), positioned between the first swirl chamber and the fluid outlet.
Ivri fails to disclose a turbine, disposed within the first swirl chamber.
However, Reale teaches a spraying device (analogues art) comprising a turbine (23), disposed within a first swirl chamber (14), the first swirl chamber communicating with the pipe unit (29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a turbine disposed within a first swirl chamber, as taught by Reale, to Ivri’s first swirl chamber, in order to increases the pressure of the water and increases its flow rate as it leaves the nozzle outlet (Col. 4, lines 22-23).
With respect to claim 3, Ivri’s spraying device modified by Reale’s turbine, Ivri and Reale disclose the spraying device according to claim 2 except for wherein a ratio of a diameter of the fluid outlet to a total length of the first swirl chamber and the second swirl chamber is between 0.4 and 1.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ratio of a diameter of the fluid outlet to a total length of the first swirl chamber and the second swirl chamber is between 0.4 and 1, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 4, Ivri’s spraying device modified by Reale’s turbine, Ivri further discloses the spraying device according to claim 2, wherein a diameter of the first swirl chamber is greater than a diameter of the second swirl chamber, and the diameter of the second swirl chamber is greater than a diameter of the fluid outlet (Figs 5 and 5A).
With respect to claim 5, Ivri’s spraying device modified by Reale’s turbine, Ivri and Reale disclose the spraying device according to claim 2 except for wherein a ratio of a curvature of an opening of a spiral groove of the turbine to a curvature of a spiral part of the turbine is between 1 and 5.0.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ratio of a curvature of an opening of a spiral groove of the turbine to a curvature of a spiral part of the turbine is between 1 and 5.0, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 6, Ivri’s spraying device modified by Reale’s turbine, Ivri and Reale further disclose the spraying device according to claim 2, further comprising a non-return valve (114), positioned at an end of the spraying head relatively proximal to the pipe unit, wherein the non-return valve is located between the turbine (of Reale located in cavity 38 of Ivri) and the pipe unit.
With respect to claim 7, Ivri’s spraying device modified by Reale’s turbine, Ivri further discloses the spraying device according to claim 6, wherein an opening and a closing of the non-return valve are linked to (caused by) the gas pressure source (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 18, Ivri discloses the spraying method according to claim 13, further comprising positioning a non-return valve (114) at an end of the spraying head proximal to the pipe unit.
Ivri fails to disclose wherein the non-return valve is located between a turbine of the spraying head and the pipe unit to prevent the liquid from flowing back into the pipe unit.
However, Reale teaches a spraying device (analogues art) comprising a turbine (23), disposed within a first swirl chamber (14), the first swirl chamber communicating with the pipe unit (29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a turbine disposed within a first swirl chamber, as taught by Reale, to Ivri’s first swirl chamber, in order to increases the pressure of the water and increases its flow rate as it leaves the nozzle outlet (Col. 4, lines 22-23).
With respect to claim 19, Ivri’s spraying device modified by Reale’s turbine, Ivri further discloses the spraying method according to claim 18, wherein an opening and a closing of the non-return valve are linked to (caused by) the gas pressure source (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivri.
With respect to claims 9 and 16, Ivri discloses the spraying device according to claims 8 and 15 except for wherein the pressure value of the first gas pressure is between 0 and 10 kPa, and the pressure value of the second gas pressure is between 50 and 200 KPa.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the pressure value of the first gas pressure between 0 and 10 kPa, and the pressure value of the second gas pressure between 50 and 200 KPa, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claims 10 and 17, Ivri discloses the spraying device according to claims 1 and spraying method according to claim 13 except for wherein the liquid comprises cells or medicines.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use cells or medicines liquids in order to spray cells or medicines. 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. The material or article worked upon also does not limit an apparatus claim but is rather an intended use of the apparatus. See: MPEP §§ 2114, 2115; See also: In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a spraying device: Maier, Liedberg, Bauer et al., Abplanalp, Konieczynski, Yamamoto et al. and Batt et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 O. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 September 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights