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
Currently claims 1-21 are pending, claims 11-19 are withdrawn, and claims 20-21 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/12/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,285,775. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims can be found in the allowed claims.
Claim 1 of the current application can be found in claim 1 of US 12,285,775.
Claim 2 of the current application can be found in claim 1 of US 12,285,775, where the claimed ranged of K greater than one can be made obvious to incorporate K greater then 0, as 1 is greater then 0.
Claim 4 of the current application is found in claim 3 of US 12,285,775, as claim 1 already discloses a positive none zero value for k in US 12,285,775.
Claim 6 of the current application is found in claim 1 of US 12,285,775.
Claim 7 of the current application is found in claim 3 of US 12,285,775.
Claim 8 of the current application is found in claim 10 of US 12,285,775.
Claim 9 of the current application is found in claim 11 of US 12,285,775.
Claim 10 of the current application is found in claim 13 of US 12,285,775.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lipp (U.S. 2007/0017505)
With respect to claim 1, Lipp discloses A method by an electrostatic atomizer for electrostatically atomizing a fluid (abstract), comprising:
monitoring one or more of: an emitter voltage Va of an emitter electrode (paragraph 0025, electrode associated within the spray nozzle to charge the liquid therein) in liquid contact with the fluid in a chamber of the electrostatic atomizer (paragraph 0025, fluid within 30 before the aperture formed by 80); or an aperture voltage Vb of the chamber (voltage of the aperture electrode 80/82 being at the outlet of the chamber where the aperture is then formed); or an emitter to aperture voltage (Va-Vb) (paragraph 0036-0037, and 0059, noted specifically monitoring the output current such that it can adjust the output voltage based on the measurements from the sensors);
determining one or more of: the emitter to aperture voltage (Va-Vb); the emitter voltage Va; or the aperture voltage Vb are not within respective predetermined thresholds (paragraph 0036-0038, the noted threshold being the desired voltage used in the system to obtain the desired spray); and
adjusting the emitter voltage Va and/or the aperture voltage Vb (paragraph 0036-0038, and 0059, noted specifically monitoring the output current such that it can adjust the output voltage based on the measurements from the sensors, and thus adjusting the voltage to the emitter or the aperture to get the desired difference for the desired spray),
electrostatically atomizing the fluid into a charged spray (paragraph 0006)), wherein the charged spray includes a plurality of charged droplets and/or particles (paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 2, Lipp discloses the plurality of droplets and/or particulates in the charged spray are characterized by a K factor greater than 0 (as the droplets are charged there would be a K factor greater than 0), wherein the K factor is a ratio of electrostatic energy of surface charges (We) of the droplets in the plurality of charged droplets and surface energy (Ws) of the droplets in the plurality of charged droplets (as the noted droplets are charged, see paragraph 0025, where the surface charge balances against the tension of the liquid, where the jet breaks into droplets of more or less uniform size for the collectively forma cloud is indicative of such a positive charge resulting in a positive K factor, and thus greater then 0).
With respect to claim 4, Lipp discloses wherein the plurality of droplets and/or particulates in the charged spray are characterized by a non-zero positive K factor (as disclosed above in claim 2 and described in paragraph 0025), wherein the K factor is a ratio of electrostatic energy of surface charges (We) of the droplets in the plurality of charged droplets and surface energy (Ws) of the droplets in the plurality of charged droplets (as the noted droplets are charged, see paragraph 0025, where the surface charge balances against the tension of the liquid, where the jet breaks into droplets of more or less uniform size for the collectively forma cloud is indicative of such a positive charge resulting in a positive K factor, and thus greater then 0, if K was 0, no droplets would form, as the charge applied to the surface would not be enough to overcome the surface tension(energy) and create the cloud of droplets).
With respect to claim 5, Lipp discloses flowing the fluent material over the emitter electrode and through the aperture of the chamber (as shown in figure 1, where fluid flows over the electrode inside 30as well as the electrode of 80); and using the emitter to aperture voltage (Va - Vb) to insert charge into the fluent material as the fluent material flows over the emitter and through the aperture of the chamber and electrostatically atomizes into the charged spray (paragraph 0025).
With respect to claim 6, Lipp discloses adjusting the emitter voltage Va (paragraphs 0028 and 0041) and/or the aperture voltage Vb Va (paragraphs 0028 and 0041) to generate the plurality of droplets and/or particulates in the charged spray having a predetermined value of a K factor (paragraph 0025, see above rejection of claim 2), wherein the K factor is a ratio of electrostatic energy of surface charges (We) of the droplets in the plurality of charged droplets and surface energy (Ws) of the droplets in the plurality of charged droplets (as the noted droplets are charged, see paragraph 0025, where the surface charge balances against the tension of the liquid, where the jet breaks into droplets of more or less uniform size for the collectively forma cloud is indicative of such a positive charge resulting in a positive K factor, and thus greater then 0).
With respect to claim 7, Lipp discloses adjusting the emitter voltage Va (paragraphs 0039-0041) and/or the aperture voltage Vb (paragraphs 0039-0041) comprises one or more of:
adjusting a power supply to the emitter electrode to increase or decrease the emitter voltage Va (paragraphs 0039-0041); or adjusting a variable impedance circuit to increase or decrease the aperture voltage Vb (paragraphs 0039-0041).
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 (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 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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIpp.
With respect to claim 3, Lipp discloses the plurality of droplets and/or particulates in the charged spray are monodispersed corresponding to a K factor (see above rejection of claim 2, as having a positive k factor) wherein the K factor is a ratio of electrostatic energy of surface charges (We) of the droplets in the plurality of charged droplets and surface energy (Ws) of the droplets in the plurality of charged droplets (where there is surface charge, see paragraph 0025, and surface energy (being the surface tension of the liquid being the energy of the liquid forming the tension)), but fails to disclose K ≥ 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize K ≥ 1 in the system of Lipp, since 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. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Paragraph 0025 of Lipp, discloses the electrical force exerted on the liquid surface overcomes the surface tension, generating a thin jet of liquid. This jet breaks into droplets of more or less uniform size, which collectively form a cloud. In another embodiment, the electrode is grounded while the discharge electrode is positively charged (at, for example, twice the voltage), or the nozzle electrode can be positive. In any case, a strong electric field is required. This is being understood that a higher charge onto the fluid allows for such breaking against the surface tension, so increasing the surface charge against what is understood by the examiner as the surface energy results in the jet breaking up, and higher the charge versus the surface tension (energy) then the more droplets in the collective cloud would be formed, as more energy is present to break apart the fluid into droplets.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipp in view of Kelly (U.S. 4,581,675).
With respect to claim 8, Lipp discloses wherein Va and Vb are measured, but not in relation to a third electrode physically separated from both the emitter and the chamber.
Kelly, column 9 row 55 through column 10 row 15, discloses using a third external electrode which is able to enhance acceleration of the charged droplets. Further disclosing measuring the external electrode currently (column 18 row 55 through column 19 row 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a third electrode, also measured, as disclosed by Kelly into the system of Lipp, as utilizing another electrode would allow for enhanced acceleration of the charged droplets, where the electrode of Kelly is shown external from the emitter and chamber as a noted “external electrode.”
With respect to claim 9, Lipp as modified discloses the third electrode is downstream and collects charges from at least a portion of the plurality of charged droplets (as understood the electrode of Kelly collects charges from the charged droplets such that the fluid accelerates their charges when collected and moved through the electrodes voltage to then accelerate the charged droplets).
With respect to claim 10, Lip discloses adjusting the emitter voltage Va and/or the aperture voltage Vb comprises one or more of: adjusting a power supply to the emitter electrode to increase or decrease the emitter voltage Va with respect to the voltage of the third electrode (as all adjustments, disclosed in the rejection of claim 7, would then be done with respect to the voltage that is also being applied to the third electrode incorporated by the teachings of Kelly); or adjusting a variable impedance circuit to increase or decrease the aperture voltage Vb with respect to the voltage of the third electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of the application fails to disclose the plurality of the droplets and/or particulates in the charged spray are monodispersed corresponding to a K factor K <1, and wherein the plurality of charged droplets and/or particulates form a spherical crystalline cage structure, and wherein a plurality of droplet diameters of the charged droplets and/or particulates are determined by an injected charge density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752