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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 2, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 19 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The invention of claim 19 is drawn to a related but distinct diffuser assembly. It is distinct because the invention recited in new claim 19 is (1) either not capable of use with the invention of claim 1 (which was originally examined) or has a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) does not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive, with the invention of claim 1; and (3) the invention of claim 1 and the invention of claim 19 are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different design, as the invention of claim 1 requires the diffuser disc to be retained in the groove in a relaxed state; but invention of claim 19 does not. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 19 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-4 and 16-18 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the amendment filed on July 2, 2025, Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to now recite: “the interior wall comprising a first uniform inner diameter extending from a first end to a second end…”; however, there does not appear to be clear disclosure in the instant specification to support such recitation. There is no written disclosure that articulates that the tubular chamber is a cylinder (or is cylindrical) which would serve as disclosure of a “uniform inner diameter” of the same, nor is there any discussion at all regarding the diameter of the tubular chamber. The only possible suggestion of a uniform inner diameter would be the drawings, perhaps, but this does not appear to be sufficient to clearly disclose that the tubular chamber has a uniform inner diameter. Figure 9c, for example, appears to show more of a bell-shaped or frusto-conically shaped tubular chamber. Applicant is requested to amend the recitation in question in response to the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fassbender (US. Pat. App. 3,312,228).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fassbender discloses a pipe having a bowl section (1) that when in its fully assembled state, along with ring (5) and cup (11) (read: tubular chamber), appears to have a uniform inner diameter (see Fig. 5) (corresponding to the claimed “[a] diffuser assembly comprising: a tubular chamber having an interior wall, the interior wall comprising a first uniform inner diameter extending from a first end to a second end”).
The pipe further comprises a disk (7 or 13) (read: circumferential compression fit diffuser disc) that is wedged within one of two annular ledges (6, 12) (read: groove/plurality of grooves). As clearly seen in Figs. 4-5, both the disk (7, 13) and the ledges (6, 12) have a diameter that is greater than that of the inner diameter of the assembled bowl/ring/cup section (corresponding to the claimed “a plurality of grooves spaced apart on the interior wall of the tubular chamber between the first end and the second end, the plurality of grooves each having a second diameter greater than the first uniform inner diameter; a circumferential compression fit diffuser disc retained in a groove of the plurality of grooves, wherein the circumferential compression fit diffuser disc has an outer circumference which is greater than the first uniform inner diameter”).
Lastly, as there is no indication to the contrary, it is to be correctly presumed that the disk (7, 13) is retained within the ledge (6, 12) in a relaxed state. As such, Fassbender anticipates each of the elements of independent claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-3, since the disk (7, 13) of Fassbender has a diameter which is larger than that of the inner diameter of the assembled bowl (10), ring (5) and cup (11), it is clear that it would naturally form “a dome having a concave side and a convex side when inserted into the tubular chamber”, per claim 2, and it is also clear that the disk (7, 13) would be “insertable into and removable form the tubular element, wherein during insertion into the tubular chamber, the circumferential diffuser disc forms a dome having a concave side and a convex side, the concave side extending in a first direction which corresponds to a direction of insertion into the tubular chamber”, per claim 3, even though the disk (7, 13) is not designed to be inserted in that manner. The fact that the physical structure of the “disk” and the “tubular chamber” are met by Fassbender means that both structures are capable of carrying out the claimed functions. Also, regarding claim 3, since the ledge (6, 12) is also of greater diameter than the inner diameter of the bowl (1), ring (5), cup (11) assembly, it is clear that a disk (7, 13) situated therein would be able to be able to be inverted via pressure to remove it in a direction that is different than that of insertion (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the groove in the tubular chamber has a diameter greater than the tubular chamber which, in combination with the application of pressure, facilitates an inversion of the down in a second direction with the application of pressure from the first direction to achieve the relaxed state”). As such, Fassbender anticipates each of the elements of claims 2-3.
Regarding claim 4, while not the intended mode of operation, it is clear that one disk (7,13) could be located in the Fassbender pipe and would be capable of being moved from one ledge (6) to another (12) which would inherently adjust the volume of the pipe bowl assembly (see Fig. 5) (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the groove is a first groove, and the assembly further comprises a second groove on the interior wall of the tubular chamber, wherein the circumferential compression fit diffuser disc is movable between the first groove and the second groove and a volume of the tubular chamber is adjustable based upon a location of the circumferential compression fit diffuser disc in either the first groove or the second groove”). As such, Fassbender anticipates each of the elements of claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, as the disk (7, 13) is made of foraminous metal which would inherently have some resiliency to enable a “spring force” to enable it to be capable carry out the claimed functions (corresponding to the claimed “wherein a spring force of the circumferential compression fit diffuser disc resists movement of the circumferential compression fit diffuser disc from the groove”). As such, Fassbender anticipates each of the elements of claim 16.
Regarding claims 17-18, as seen from Figs. 5-6, the disk (7) has apertures throughout its surface, including the outer edge (corresponding to the “wherein the circumferential compression fit diffuser disc comprises a plurality of…apertures in is outer edge” recitation of claim 17 and the “wherein the circumferential compression fit diffuser disc comprises a plurality of…apertures” recitation of claim 18). As such, Fassbender anticipates each of the elements of claims 17-18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection, presented above, which were necessitated because of the amendments made to the claims, filed on Jul 2, 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE WALLS MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5836. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Thursdays, 8:00AM - 4:00PM (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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/DIONNE W. MAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747