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 on 6/15/2026 after a final rejection was mailed 1/15/2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on May 15th, 2026 is acknowledged. Four pages of amended claims were received on 5/15/2026. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended and Claims 22-27 are newly presented. The drawings, specification, and Claims 12, 23-25, and 27 are now objected to as noted below.
The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the final rejection mailed 1/15/2026, however Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, 12, 14-17, and 20-27 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as noted below and Claims 22-23 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as noted below.
Drawings
The drawings remain objected to because broken lines are not applied in Fig. 2C and Fig. 3A to indicate planes upon which the sectional views in Fig. 2D and Fig. 3B are taken from. See MPEP 608.02 V.h.3. which explicitly states “The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight”.
The drawings are also now objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein the at least one liquid jet orifice configured to emit the liquid from the nozzle head in form of a jet is elevated within the tip relative to the plurality of rounded grooves formed in the orifice surface” (See Claim 1 and Claim 12) and “wherein the length and width are approximately equal” (See Claims 22 and 23) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency.
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification lacks antecedent basis for the “plurality of fins” in Claims 24-27. A plurality of unlabeled fins appear to be shown in Figs. 8A, 8C, 8D, 9A, 9C, and 9D, however the Specification makes no mention of any fins.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 23-25, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 12 Line 19, “the at least one liquid jet orifice” should be revised to “the at least one central liquid jet orifice” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 12 Line 20, “the plurality of rounded grooves” should be revised to “the angled or rounded groove” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 23 Lines 1-2, “the plurality of rounded grooves” should be revised to “the angled or rounded groove” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 24 Line 2, “the orifice” should be revised to “the at least one orifice” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 25 Line 3, “in the form” should be revised to “in form” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 27 Line 2, “above a one of the plurality of rounded grooves” should be revised to “above the angled or rounded groove” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 27 Line 3, “in the form” should be revised to “in form” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6, 9-10, 12, 14-17, and 20-27 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.
Claims 1 and 12 each now state “wherein the at least one liquid jet orifice configured to emit the liquid from the nozzle head in form of a jet is elevated within the tip relative to the plurality of rounded grooves formed in the orifice surface” which is not supported by the description as originally filed. The specification makes no mention of the at least one liquid jet orifice being elevated within the tip relative to the plurality of rounded grooves. Paragraph 0053 of the Specification merely states “Referring to FIGS. 8C and 8D are two views of a head portion 16 of a nozzle member 14of a personal care cleaning device, comprising the nozzle embodiment of FIGS. 8A and 8B. The head portion is angled relative to the body portion. The tip of head portion 16 comprises an orifice surface 30 with a central jet 42 configured to emit a jet of liquid and/or air and four surrounding grooves 40a-d configured to emit liquid sheets. The grooves are rounded rather than V-shaped in this embodiment. Extending from the nozzle head portion, such as from the orifice surface, is a rounded tip 28.”. Furthermore, the at least one liquid jet orifice #42 appears to be at a same height as the rounded grooves 40a, 40b, 40c, and 40d shown in Fig. 8D, while some other structure that is at a center of fins appears to be elevated relative to the plurality of rounded grooves in Fig. 8D. In fact, Claims 1 and 12 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the original disclosure fails to show “wherein the at least one liquid jet orifice configured to emit the liquid from the nozzle head in form of a jet is elevated within the tip relative to the plurality of rounded grooves formed in the orifice surface” as claimed.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 16-17, 20, 22, and 24-25 depend from Claim 1, therefore Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 16-17, 20, 22, and 24-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement because Claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 14-15, 21, 23, and 26-27 depend from Claim 12, therefore Claims 14-15, 21, 23, and 26-27 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement because Claim 12 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 22-23 also fail the written description requirement because Claims 22-23 each state “wherein each of the plurality of rounded grooves comprises a length and a width, wherein the length and width are approximately equal” which is not supported by the description as originally filed. The specification makes no mention of the plurality of rounded grooves having a length and width that are approximately equal. Paragraph 0058 of the Specification merely states “According to an embodiment, the thickness and/or length of the liquid sheets is dependent upon and/or affected by one or more geometric parameters of the shape of the orifice, the soft tip, and/or other factors. Each shape might have specific parameters associated with it. For example, the number of sheets may depend on the number of grooves, while the thickness and/or length of the sheets may depend on the cut angle of the grooves, among other factors. However, there may also be geometrical constraints that limit the type of shape that can be generated. For example, the sum of angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. According to an embodiment, for some uses on-symmetrical shapes would be less preferred, such as scalene triangles, as they would apply a rotational restriction rather than being rotationally independent.”. Furthermore, Paragraph 0042 of the Specification states “A liquid sheet can be defined as a shape that has a cross-section in which the length is longer than the width” and Fig. 8D shows a plurality of rounded grooves having a length that clearly is longer than a width, and no figures appear to show a rounded groove having a length that is approximately equal to its width. In fact, Claims 22 and 23 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the original disclosure fails to show “wherein the length and width are approximately equal” as claimed.
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 22-23 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.
Claims 22-23 are indefinite because each claim states “wherein each of the plurality of rounded grooves comprises a length and a width, wherein the length and width are approximately equal” and the term “approximately equal” is a relative term. The term “approximately equal” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is not clear if the length and width must be within 1% of each other, within 2% of each other, within 5% of each other, or within some other percentage of each other to be considered “approximately equal”. For the purpose of examination, the term “approximately equal” in Claims 22-23 will be interpreted as “equal”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 on (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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights