DETAILED ACTION
Receipt and entry of Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment dated October 23, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-In claim 1, line 1, “An EHD” should be changed to ----- An electrohydrodynamic (EHD) ---. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorslund et al. (Thorslund) (Patent/Publication Number US 2016/0298617) in view of design choice.
Regarding claim 1, Thorslund discloses an EHD pump (100, 200, 110, 120) comprising at least a first electrode (110) and at least a second electrode (120), the first electrode comprising a first grid (112) and the second electrode comprising a second grid (122) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0042-0043]), each of the first and second grids having grid openings (Figures 1 and 5-6) formed by bridges (111, 121) and such that each of the first and second grids has at least one grid opening delimited by bridges on all sides of the grid opening, wherein the second grid is asymmetric with respect to the first grid (e.g. See Paragraphs [0058] FIG. 6 shows a cross section of an assembly, such as a pump assembly 200, comprising a stack of three devices 100 according to any one of the previously described embodiments. The cross section is taken along the direction of the flow (indicated by an arrow in FIG. 6) and across a respective bridge 111, 121 of the grids of the electrodes 110, 120. Each device comprises an electron emitting electrode (emitter) 110, an electron collecting electrode (collector) 120, and a grid spacer 130 arranged to separate the emitter 110 and the collector 120 in the direction of the flow. ......) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0042-0043, 0058-0059]).
However, Thorslund fails to disclose that the second grid a different size of the grid openings with respect to the size of the grid openings of the first grid.
Regarding the specific range of the grid openings, it is the examiner’s position that a size of the second grid openings with respect to the size of the first grid openings, would have been an obvious matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, depending on variables such as mass flow rate of the fluid, as well as the concentration of the fluid, properties of materials for making the electrodes, and the controlled power of the electrohydrodynamic pump. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result (See In re Kuhle, 562 F. 2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. In re Dreyfus, 22 CCPA (Patents) 830, 73 F.2d 931, 24 USPQ 52; In re Waite et al., 35 CCPA (Patents) 1117, 168 F.2d 104, 77 USPQ 586. Such ranges are termed "critical" ranges, and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. In re Swenson et al., 30 CCPA (Patents) 809, 132 F.2d 1020, 56 USPQ 372; In re Scherl, 33 CCPA (Patents) 1193, 156 F.2d 72, 70 USPQ 204. However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. In re Sola, 22 CCPA (Patents) 1313, 77 F.2d 627, 25 USPQ 433; In re Normann et al., 32 CCPA (Patents) 1248, 150 F.2d 627, 66 USPQ 308; In re Irmscher, 32 CCPA (Patents) 1259, 150 F.2d 705, 66 USPQ 314. More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Swain et al., 33 CCPA (Patents) 1250, 156 F.2d 239, 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 69 App. D.C. 217, 99 F.2d 986, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 77 App. D.C. 324, 135 F.2d 11, 57 USPQ 136.
Regarding claim 5, Thorslund further discloses wherein one of the first grid and the second grid has only one single grid opening (e.g. See Figures 1 and 5-6; Paragraphs [0042-0043, 0058-0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Thorslund further discloses wherein at least one of the first grid and the second grid has at least one rectangular shaped grid opening (e.g. See Figures 1 and 5-6; Paragraphs [0042-0043, 0058-0059]).
Regarding claim 7, Thorslund further discloses wherein at least one bridge has a protrusion (119, 129) on the side facing a grid opening (e.g. See Paragraphs [0053] FIGS. 4a is a cross section of a device according to an embodiment of the invention. The device comprises a first electrode, or emitter 110, and a second electrode, or collector 120, which are arranged in a stacking structure 140. The emitter 110 and the collector 120 has a lateral extension in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the fluid flow, and are arranged spaced apart from each other by a support structure, or grid spacer 130. According to FIG. 4a, the emitter 110 and the collector 120 comprises a respective contact portion 119, 129 arranged at one of the sides of the device. The respective contact portions 119, 129 may formed as integrally formed protrusions of the electrodes and be adapted to engage with an edge of the stacking structure. The protruding contact portions 119, 129 may hence act as alignment structures during assemblage of the devices and/or enable electric contacting of the electrodes 110, 120.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0053-0054, 0058-0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Thorslund further discloses wherein the at least one bridge has a plurality of protrusions on the side facing the grid opening (e.g. See Paragraphs [0053-0054, 0058-0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Thorslund further discloses wherein the surface of at least one the grids is provided with a thin film coating and/or a surface modification (e.g. See Paragraphs [0058-0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, and 9 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; and also to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action, such as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112 2nd paragraph, and double patenting.
Since allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant is encouraged to submit Final Formal Drawings (If Needed) in response to this Office action. The early submission of formal drawings will permit the Office to review the drawings for acceptability and to resolve any informalities remaining therein before the application is passed to issue. This will avoid possible delays in the issue process.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and consists of seven patents:
Jewell-Larsen et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2012/0205079), Schlitz et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2010/0177519), Honer et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2011/0308775), Gimsa et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2010/0150738), Richter et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 5180288), Thorslund et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2021/0082786), and Bjorneklett et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 11462785), all discloses an electrohydrodynamic pump for use with fluid dispensing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Binh Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-4865. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Mark Laurenzi, can be reach on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Binh Q. Tran
/BINH Q TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3748
July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights