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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2026 and 04/18/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 04/18/2025 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2-3, 13-14 recites the limitation "the gas ejection port". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. As it unclear whether these are new structural limitations or one of the plurality of gas ejection ports introduced in claims 1, 8. The examiner suggests amending each instance of "the gas ejection port" to read “the plurality gas ejection ports”.
Claims 4-7, 15-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because the fail to cure the deficiencies of claims 2, 13.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2021/0069741 A1), in view of Fong et al. (US 2019/0292685 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a coaxial control dual nozzle – (construed as an electrospinning nozzle) as part of an electrospinning device, see [0002]. The coaxial control dual nozzle is configured to have an inner nozzle body 101 into which a spinning solution serving as a first fluid is injected at 101a, see [0038]; an inner needle unit 103 connected to the inner nozzle body and having a hollow tube-shaped inner needle 103a serving as an outlet of the first fluid, see [0037]; an outer nozzle body 102 into which air serving as a second fluid is injected at 102 a, see [0041]; and a high voltage applying unit connected to the inner nozzle body, see [0018].
Park does not explicitly disclose an air ejection unit is coupled to a tip of the outer nozzle body and configured to generate a flow of the air serving as the second fluid moving straight against a charged filament by the spinning solution discharged from the inner needle nor includes a center hole through which the inner needle penetrates and a plurality of gas ejection ports radially arranged to surround the center hole to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance.
Fong discloses an electrospinning machine. The machine is configured to have structure functional as an air ejection unit coupled to a tip of the outer nozzle body and configured to generate a flow of the air serving as the second fluid moving straight against a charged filament by the spinning solution discharged from the inner needle, see depictions below.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Air ejection unit)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The machine is further configured to have a nozzle 14 whose outlet end includes a center hole through which an inner needle 16 penetrates and a plurality of air holes 46 – (construed as gas ejection ports) radially arranged to surround the center hole to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance, see at least FIGS 1C, 3A. One of ordinary skill would appreciate such a nozzle body outlet end design as Fong suggest doing so increases the (maximum) outflow rate. While, additionally improving the stability of the electrospinning process by maintaining the constant shape of the Taylor Cone 34, and facilitating the fast dissipation/removal of solvent vapor, thereby preventing, or at minimum mitigating, material waste, see [0056].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s nozzle body outlet end as claimed and reasonably suggested by Fong to provide the electrospinning mechanism with the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claim 2, modified Park discloses wherein the gas ejection port includes a plurality of air holes 46 for discharging the air serving as the second fluid (supplied through 44) to the outside,
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein a plurality of circumferential regions are formed centered around the center hole, and at least two air holes are arranged at regular intervals in the circumferential regions, see Fong FIGS above.
Regarding claims 3-6, modified Park does not explicitly disclose the claimed plurality of gas ejection ports orientations or difference in radii or sizes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Park’s gas ejection ports as claimed since: such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of and/or duplicating a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size/dimension is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, one would have been motivated to make such changes in order to optimize Fong’s suggestion of the holes providing the benefits of: Increased (maximum) outflow rate, improved stability of the electrospinning process, and facilitating the fast dissipation/removal of solvent vapor, thereby preventing, or at minimum mitigating, material waste, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, modified Park discloses the air ejection unit includes a side fastening unit coupled with the extended tip of the outer nozzle body 104,
PNG
media_image4.png
354
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and a cover unit in which the center hole and a plurality of gas discharge ports arranged to surround the center hole are formed, and wherein the air ejection unit is an air cap having a space to stay the air serving as the second fluid, which is formed therein by the side fastening unit and the cover unit.
Claims 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2021/0069741 A1), in view of Fong et al. (US 2019/0292685 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses a coaxial control dual nozzle – (construed as an electrospinning nozzle) as part of an electrospinning device, see [0002]. The coaxial control dual nozzle is configured to have an inner nozzle body 301 into which a first fluid is injected at 301a, see [0062]; an inner needle unit 303 connected to the inner nozzle body and having a hollow tube-shaped inner needle 303a serving as an outlet of the first fluid, see [0062]; an outer nozzle body 302 into which a second fluid is injected, see [0062]; an outer needle 304 connected to the outer nozzle body and having a hollow tube-shaped outer needle serving as an outlet for the second fluid and arranged to coaxially surround the inner needle, see [0062]; an outer needle positioning unit 307 configured to adjust a central axis position of the outer needle, see [0062]; second injection port 302a – (construed as a gas inlet) configured to inject air that is a gas, see [0065]; and a high voltage applying unit connected to the inner nozzle body, see [0018].
While Park discloses use of a double needle (303, 304); it does not explicitly disclose an air ejection unit coupled to a tip of the outer needle positioning unit and configured to generate a flow of the air moving straight against a charged filament by a spinning solution discharged from a double needle, which is formed by the outer needle coaxially surrounding the inner needle nor further includes a center hole through which the double needle penetrates and a plurality of gas ejection ports radially arranged to surround the center hole to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance.
Fong discloses an electrospinning machine. The machine is configured to have structure functional as an air ejection unit coupled to a tip of the outer nozzle body and configured to generate a flow of the air serving as the second fluid moving straight against a charged filament by the spinning solution discharged from the inner needle, see depictions below.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Air ejection unit)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The machine is further configured to have a nozzle 14 whose outlet end includes a center hole through which an inner needle 16 penetrates and a plurality of air holes 46 – (construed as gas ejection ports) radially arranged to surround the center hole to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance, see at least FIGS 1C, 3A. One of ordinary skill would appreciate such a nozzle body outlet end design as Fong suggest doing so increases the (maximum) outflow rate. While, additionally improving the stability of the electrospinning process by maintaining the constant shape of the Taylor Cone 34, and facilitating the fast dissipation/removal of solvent vapor, thereby preventing, or at minimum mitigating, material waste, see [0056].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s nozzle body outlet end as claimed and reasonably suggested by Fong to provide the electrospinning mechanism with the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claims 9-11, modified Park discloses
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Air ejection unit location)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gas flow path)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Positioning unit body)]
PNG
media_image5.png
191
434
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the outer needle positioning unit includes: a positioning unit body having a cylindrical shape and arranged between the outer needle unit and the air ejection unit to form a gas flow path, and a plurality of screw pins 307a installed on a part of the positioning unit body to adjust a central axis of the outer needle; and the gas inlet is formed at one end of the positioning unit body, and wherein the air injected through the gas inlet is discharged to the air ejection unit; and the plurality of screw pins are arranged to surround a periphery of the outer needle, which are installed at a predetermined angle from each other on a periphery of the positioning unit body, clearly depicted above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Park discloses an inner diameter of the outer needle is larger than an outer diameter of the inner needle by 5 μm to 1,000 μm, and wherein a distance from the central axes of the inner needle to the outer needle is less than 0.1 mm, see Park [0069], [0056]. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the claimed diameters and distance that corresponds to the claimed range as Park clearly envisions the claimed dimensions. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, modified Park discloses wherein the gas ejection port includes a plurality of air holes 46 for discharging the air serving as the second fluid (supplied through 44) to the outside,
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein a plurality of circumferential regions are formed centered around the center hole, and at least two air holes are arranged at regular intervals in the circumferential regions, see Fong FIGS above.
Regarding claims 14-17, modified Park does not explicitly disclose the claimed plurality of gas ejection ports orientations or difference in radii or sizes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Park’s gas ejection ports as claimed since: such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of and/or duplicating a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size/dimension is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, one would have been motivated to make such changes in order to optimize Fong’s suggestion of the holes providing the benefits of: Increased (maximum) outflow rate, improved stability of the electrospinning process, and facilitating the fast dissipation/removal of solvent vapor, thereby preventing, or at minimum mitigating, material waste, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 18, modified Park discloses the air ejection unit includes a side fastening unit coupled with the extended tip of the outer nozzle body 104,
PNG
media_image4.png
354
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and a cover unit in which the center hole and a plurality of gas discharge ports arranged to surround the center hole are formed, and wherein the air ejection unit is an air cap having a space to stay the air serving as the second fluid, which is formed therein by the side fastening unit and the cover unit.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2021/0069741 A1), in view of Fong et al. (US 2019/0292685 A1).
Regarding claims 19-20, Park discloses a coaxial control dual nozzle – (construed as an electrospinning nozzle) as part of an electrospinning device, see [0002]. The coaxial control dual nozzle is configured to have an inner nozzle body 301 having a first fluid inlet into which a first fluid is injected, see [0062]; an inner needle unit 303 connected to the inner nozzle body and having a hollow tube-shaped inner needle 303a serving as an outlet of the first fluid, see [0062]; an outer nozzle body 302 having a second fluid into which air as a second fluid is injected, see [0062]; a pneumatic control unit body 310 including a needle shaft 311 for controlling and blocking a flow of the first fluid transferred to the inner needle unit and a needle shaft sealing portion 312 for preventing the first fluid from flowing backward and leaking to the upper portion of the needle shaft; the pneumatic control unit body further includes an air inlet 310a for injecting air into the needle shaft 311, see [0062], and wherein the needle shaft includes: a spring 313 wound around the needle shaft and having an elastic restoring force, see [0063], [0066]; a taper blocking portion 311a formed at a tip of the needle shaft to block a fluid passage toward the inner needle unit in order to block the flow of the first fluid, see [0063], [0065], and a shaft needle 311b connected to the taper blocking portion and having a pointed end penetrating the inner needle and protruding through a front end of the inner needle, see [0063]; and a high voltage applying unit connected to the inner nozzle body, see [0018].
Park does not explicitly disclose an air ejection unit connected to a tip of the outer nozzle body to generate a flow of air serving as the second fluid that moves straight against a charged filament by a spinning solution discharged from the inner needle nor includes a center hole penetrating the inner needle and a plurality of gas ejection ports radially arranged to surround the center hole to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance.
Fong discloses an electrospinning machine. The machine is configured to have structure functional as an air ejection unit coupled to a tip of the outer nozzle body and configured to generate a flow of the air serving as the second fluid moving straight against a charged filament by the spinning solution discharged from the inner needle, see depictions below.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Air ejection unit)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The machine is further configured to have a nozzle 14 whose outlet end includes a center hole through which an inner needle 16 penetrates and a plurality of air holes 46 – (construed as gas ejection ports) radially arranged to surround the center hole to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance, see at least FIGS 1C, 3A. One of ordinary skill would appreciate such a nozzle body outlet end design as Fong suggest doing so increases the (maximum) outflow rate. While, additionally improving the stability of the electrospinning process by maintaining the constant shape of the Taylor Cone 34, and facilitating the fast dissipation/removal of solvent vapor, thereby preventing, or at minimum mitigating, material waste, see [0056].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s nozzle body outlet end as claimed and reasonably suggested by Fong to provide the electrospinning mechanism with the aforementioned benefits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights