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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a bottom wall of said containment chamber” should be revised to “the bottom wall of said containment chamber” in ln. 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a vibration reducer in claim 1, ln. 13 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18 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.
Claim limitation “a vibration reducer” in claim 1, ln. 13 and 19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose a vibration reducer, not does it define the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing a vibration reducer. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that a vibration reducer is a structure that reduces vibrations.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-16 are rejected by virtue of dependency from claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a bottom wall of said containment chamber” in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the bottom wall of said containment chamber previously recited in claim 17 or the applicant is referring to a different bottom wall of said containment chamber. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the bottom wall of said containment chamber previously recited in claim 17.
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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner (EP 1072317, herein referenced to as “Suttner 1”) in view of Baumann et al. (US 20170072421 A1) and Suttner (DE 20115089 U1, herein referenced to as “Suttner 2”).
Regarding claim 1, Suttner 1 discloses a rotary jet nozzle assembly (10, Fig. 1) for pressure cleaning devices, comprising:
a housing (11, Fig. 1) extended along a first longitudinal axis (13, Fig. 1) between an inlet (22, Fig. 1) and an outlet (14, Fig. 1) for a washing liquid (annotated in Fig. 1), defining a containment chamber (23, Fig. 1) of the washing liquid in fluid communication with the inlet (annotated in Fig. 1);
a support (39, Fig. 1) fully rotatable about the first longitudinal axis within the containment chamber, due to the effect of the washing liquid coming from the inlet (disk 39 rotates about the longitudinal axis of the housing 11 when fluid travels from the inlet, Paragraph 0013);
a nozzle body (12, Fig. 1) extended along a second longitudinal axis inclined with respect to the first longitudinal axis (30, Fig. 1) and traversed by a delivery duct (35 and 37, Fig. 1), the delivery duct opening upstream on the containment chamber (annotated in Fig. 1) and opening downstream in a delivery opening (34, Fig. 1) arranged, in use, at the outlet of the housing (fluid travels out at the bore 34, through outlet bore 29, and out of the bore 14, Paragraph 0012), the nozzle body (12, Fig. 1) being associated with the support and driven in rotation (nozzle body 12 is guided for rotation, Paragraph 0013);
and a vibration reducer (interpreting as a structure that reduces vibrations, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 45, compensating body 45 is aligned and dimensioned to eliminate vibrations caused by rotation of nozzle body 12, Fig. 1. Paragraph 0016), integral with the support (interpreting as formed as a unit with another part, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 39, compensating body 45 is arranged on disk 39 and formed as a unit with disk 39, annotated in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016) and arranged in a position that is eccentric (interpreting as located internally somewhere other than at the geometric center, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) and opposite the nozzle body (12, Fig. 1) with respect to the first longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 1), to balance the nozzle body (12, Fig. 1) during the rotation of the support (39, Fig. 1) about the first longitudinal axis (30, Fig. 1) and thereby reduce vibrations caused by eccentric imbalance of rotating mass with respect to the first longitudinal axis (30, compensating body 45 is aligned and dimensioned opposite and eccentric from the nozzle body 12 on the disk 39 to balance and reduce vibrations caused by rotation of nozzle body 12, which is eccentric with respect to axis 30, as it is being rotated by disk 39, Fig. 1, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0013, 0016).
PNG
media_image1.png
799
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Suttner 1 does not explicitly disclose a vibration reducer as claimed in claim 1. Baumann teaches a rotary jet nozzle assembly (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising a vibration reducer (18, damping element 18 only allows vibrations from cleaning nozzles 14 to be transferred to a limited extent, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0073).
Suttner 1 and Baumann are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of rotor nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vibration reducer taught in Baumann to Suttner 1, to have a vibration reducer, integral with the support and arranged in a position that is eccentric and opposite the nozzle body with respect to the first longitudinal axis, to balance the nozzle body during the rotation of the support about the first longitudinal axis and thereby reduce vibrations caused by eccentric imbalance of rotating mass with respect to the first longitudinal axis. The vibration reducer taught in Baumann would be added to Suttner 1’s compensating body. Doing so decreases the transfer of vibrations from the cleaning nozzle and allows the device to have a shorter cleaning time (Baumann, Paragraphs 0034, 0073).
However, Suttner 1 and Baumann not teach the vibration reducer is made of a first material and the support is made of a second material as claimed. Suttner 2 teaches a counterweight (10, Fig. 2) is made of a first material (counterweight is made of metal, Paragraphs 0016, 0028) and a support (6, Figs. 1-2) is made of a second material (rotor body 6 is made of plastic, Paragraph 0025), the first material being different from the second material (metal is different from plastic, Paragraphs 0016, 0025, 0028).
Suttner 1, Baumann, and Suttner 2 are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of rotor nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first and second materials taught in Suttner 2 to Suttner 1, to have the vibration reducer is made of a first material and said support is made of a second material, said first material being different from said second material. The first material would be combined to the vibration reducer disclosed by Suttner 1, as modified by Baumann above, to have a vibration reducer is made of a first material. Doing so allows the counterweight to balance the nozzle body more efficiently (Suttner, Paragraphs 0015-0016).
Regarding claim 2, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1 applied above. Suttner further teaches in the second reference the first material has a higher specific weight than the second material (one of ordinary skill in the art would know that metal has a higher specific weight than plastic, Paragraphs 0016, 0025, 0028).
Claims 3-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner (EP 1072317, herein referenced to as “Suttner 1”) in view of Baumann et al. (US 20170072421 A1) and Suttner (DE 20115089 U1, herein referenced to as “Suttner 2”) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Fritze (U.S. Patent 10,040,078).
With respect to claim 3, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 2 applied above. Suttner 2 teaches the first material is a metallic material (Paragraphs 0016, 0028). However, Suttner 1, Baumann, and Suttner 2 do not teach the second material is a polymeric or polymer matrix material. Fritze teaches a support (200, Fig. 3) is made of a second material and the second material being a polymeric material or a polymer matrix material (rocker assembly 200 can be made of polyethylene, Col. 5, Ln. 14-18).
Suttner 1, Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of rotor nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fritze to Suttner 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, to have the material of the counterweight be a metallic material and the material of the support be a polymeric or polymer matrix material. Doing so allows the counterweight to balance the nozzle body better as the support has a lighter weight to improve the efficiency of the counterweight (Fritze, Col. 5, Ln. 14-18).
In regards to claim 4, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 3 applied above. Fritze further teaches the support is made by molding (polymeric materials can be made through molding, Col. 3, Ln. 58-61) and the counterweight is made by machining (metals can be machined, Col. 4, Ln. 52-54).
Regarding claim 5, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1 applied above. Suttner 1 discloses the support comprises a coupling seat adapted to receive the counterweight (annotated in Fig. 1), the counterweight comprising at least one coupling portion (46, Fig. 1) shaped so as to be wedged in the coupling seat of the support (compensating body 45 is screwed to the disk 39 through screw 46, Paragraph 0016).
PNG
media_image2.png
799
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Suttner 1, Baumann, and Suttner 2 do not teach the coupling portion is fastened to the coupling seat without threaded connection. Fritze teaches a coupling portion (106, Fig. 3) is fastened to a coupling seat (105, shown in Fig. 3) without threaded connection (driving lug 106 is connected to turbine 105 with a press fit, Col. 5, Ln. 10-13).
Suttner 1, Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of rotor nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Fritze to Suttner 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, to have the coupling portion is fastened to the coupling seat without threaded connection. Doing so secures the parts together more securely and without additional parts (Fritze, Col. 5, Ln. 10-13).
In regards to claim 6, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 5 applied above. Suttner 1 discloses the counterweight further comprises at least one balancing portion integral with the coupling portion (annotated in Fig. 1), the balancing portion having a different cross section (annotated in Fig. 1), the balancing portion being shaped so as to dynamically balance the mass of the nozzle body (compensating body 45 is shaped and aligned in a rod shape to eliminate the vibrations caused by the rotation of the nozzle body 12, Paragraph 0016).
PNG
media_image3.png
799
715
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 5 applied above. Suttner 1 discloses the nozzle body comprises a downstream end at which the delivery opening opens (31, Fig. 1) and an upstream end associated with the support (38, Fig. 1);
the support (39, Fig. 1) comprising a nozzle body seat (annotated in Fig. 1) arranged in a position eccentric and opposite the coupling seat with respect to the first longitudinal axis of the housing (annotated in Fig. 1);
the upstream end of the nozzle body being introduced within said nozzle body seat (annotated in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
799
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1 applied above. However, Suttner 1, Baumann, and Suttner 2 do not teach the support comprising a turbine. Fritze teaches a support (200, Fig. 3) comprises a turbine (105, Fig. 3) hit and driven in rotation by at least a part of the washing liquid coming from the inlet (50, Fig. 3, Col. 4, Ln. 10-12) of the housing (101, Fig. 3).
Suttner 1, Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of rotor nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fritze to Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, to have the support comprising a turbine hit and driven in rotation by at least part of the washing liquid coming from the inlet of said housing. Doing so allows the support to rotate more easily as fluid travels from the inlet.
Regarding claim 10, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 9 applied above. Suttner 1 discloses at least one main passage (42, Fig. 1) and at least one by-pass passage (27, Fig. 1) which both connect the inlet to the containment chamber (annotated and shown in Fig. 1); and
the at least one by-pass passage (27, Fig. 1) directs a second part of the washing liquid coming from said inlet (22, shown in Fig. 1) in the containment chamber (23, Fig. 1) without hitting the turbine (shown in Fig. 1).
Fritze further teaches the at least one main passage directs a first part of the washing liquid coming from said inlet in the containment chamber hitting the turbine driving it in rotation (Col. 4, Ln. 39-46).
PNG
media_image5.png
799
697
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 10 applied above. Suttner 1 further discloses the support (39, Fig. 1) is rotatable mounted on a pin integral to the housing which extends along the first longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
799
560
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fritze further teaches the turbine (105, Fig. 3) comprising a blading (105a, Fig. 6) which surrounds the pin (annotated in Fig. 3);
the at least one main passage opening to a first area interposed between the pin and the blading (annotated in Fig. 3), the at least one by-pass passage opening to a second area arranged between the blading and a side wall of the housing (annotated in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image7.png
896
831
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
529
473
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 11 applied above. Suttner 1 further discloses the at least one main passage traverses the pin (annotated in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image9.png
799
605
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 12 applied above. Suttner 1 further discloses the pin extends from a support base (26, Fig. 1) integral with the housing (annotated in Fig. 1);
an interspace being formed inside the containment chamber between the support base and the side wall (annotated in Fig. 1);
the at least one by-pass passage opening to the interspace (annotated in Fig. 1);
said interspace (annotated in Fig. 1) redirecting the washing liquid traveling from the by-pass passage (27, Fig. 1) to rejoin the washing liquid traveling from the main passage (42, shown in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image10.png
799
661
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze discloses teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 3. Suttner 2 further teaches a metallic material of the counterweight (10, Fig. 2) is brass (Paragraphs 0028, 0031).
Regarding claim 15, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 6 applied above. However, Suttner 1, Baumann, and Suttner 2 do not teach the different size of the cross section of the balancing portion is less than the size of the cross section of the coupling portion. Fritze teaches the different size of the cross section of the balancing portion (annotated in Fig. 3) is less than the size of the cross section of the coupling portion (107, annotated in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image11.png
896
687
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Suttner 1, Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of rotor nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fritze to Suttner 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, to have the different size cross section of the balancing portion less than the size of the cross section of the coupling portion. Doing so allows the counterweight to be more secured within the housing.
Regarding claim 16, Sutter 1, as modified by Baumann, Suttner 2, and Fritze discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 5 applied above. Fritze further teaches the coupling portion (106, Fig. 3) is fastened to the coupling seat (105, shown in Fig. 3) by an interference fit (driving lug 106 is connected to turbine 105 with a press fit, which is also known in the art as an interference fit, Col. 5, Ln. 10-13).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner (EP 1072317, herein referenced to as “Suttner 1”) in view of Baumann et al. (US 20170072421 A1) and Suttner (DE 20115089 U1, herein referenced to as “Suttner 2”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jaeger (DE 4239542 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Suttner 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1 applied above. Suttner 1 further discloses the nozzle body (12, Fig. 1) comprises a downstream end at which the delivery opening opens (31, Fig. 1) and an upstream end associated with the support (38, Fig. 1). However, Suttner 1, Baumann, and Suttner 2 do not teach a nozzle assembly further comprising at least one elastic element as claimed. Jaeger teaches a rotary jet nozzle assembly (entire structure, Fig. 9) comprising at least one elastic element (14, the Examiner takes Official Notice based on reliance of common knowledge in the art that a spring has elastic properties, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0035) acting on the support (4, spring member 14 provides a damping force against the axial movement of rotor body 4, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0035) adapted to keep, in use, the downstream end (12, Fig. 9) of the nozzle body (external surface of nozzle 5, shown in Fig. 9) in abutment against a sliding seat (6, Fig. 9) arranged at the outlet (3, spring member 14 can be arranged adjacent to the cup bearing 6 and engage nozzle tip 12, which enables nozzle tip 12 to abut against the cup bearing 6, shown in Fig. 9, Paragraph 0035).
Suttner 1, Baumann, Suttner 2, and Jaeger are all considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotary jet nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the at least one elastic element taught in Jaeger to Suttner 1, as modified by Baumann and Suttner 2, to have the nozzle assembly further comprising at least one elastic element acting on said support adapted to keep, in use, said downstream end of said nozzle body in abutment against a sliding seat arranged at said outlet. Doing so achieves a more wear-free operation (Jaeger, Paragraph 0017).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner (EP 1072317, herein referenced to as “Suttner 1”) in view of Baumann et al. (US 20170072421 A1) and Suttner (DE 20115089 U1, herein referenced to as “Suttner 2”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jager (US 20090212129 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Suttner 1 discloses a rotary jet nozzle assembly (10, Fig. 1) for pressure cleaning devices, comprising:
a housing (11, Fig. 1) extended along a first longitudinal axis (13, Fig. 1) between an inlet (22, Fig. 1) and an outlet (14, Fig. 1) for a washing liquid (annotated in Fig. 1), defining therein a containment chamber (23, Fig. 1) of the washing liquid in fluid communication with said inlet (annotated in Fig. 1);
a support (39, Fig. 1) fully rotatable about the first longitudinal axis within the containment chamber, due to the effect of the washing liquid coming from the inlet (disk 39 rotates about the longitudinal axis of the housing 11 when fluid travels from the inlet, Paragraph 0013);
a nozzle body (12, Fig. 1) extended along a second longitudinal axis inclined with respect to the first longitudinal axis (30, Fig. 1) and traversed by a delivery duct (35 and 37, Fig. 1), said delivery duct opening upstream on the containment chamber (annotated in Fig. 1) and opening downstream in a delivery opening (34, Fig. 1) arranged, in use, at said outlet of the housing (fluid travels out at the bore 34, through outlet bore 29, and out of the bore 14, Paragraph 0012), said nozzle body (12, Fig. 1) being associated with the support and driven in rotation thereby (nozzle body 12 is guided for rotation, Paragraph 0013);
a counterweight (45, Fig. 1), integral with said support (39, annotated in Fig. 1) and arranged in a position that is eccentric and opposite the nozzle body (12, Fig. 1) with respect to the first longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 1), to balance the nozzle body during the rotation of the support about the first longitudinal axis (compensating body 45 is arranged to balance and reduce vibrations caused by nozzle body 12, Paragraph 0016);
the nozzle body (12, Fig. 1) comprises a downstream end at which said delivery opening opens (31, Fig. 1) and an upstream end associated with said support (38, Fig. 1).
However, Suttner does not disclose the counterweight is made of a first material and the support is made of a second material as claimed. Suttner 2 teaches a rotary jet nozzle assembly (1, Figs. 1-2) comprising a counterweight (10, Fig. 2) is made of a first material (counterweight is made of metal, Paragraphs 0016, 0028) and a support (6, Figs. 1-2) is made of a second material (rotor body 6 is made of plastic, Paragraph 0025), the first material being different from the second material (metal is different from plastic, Paragraphs 0016, 0025, 0028).
Suttner 1 and Suttner 2 are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of rotor nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suttner 2 to Suttner 1 to have the counterweight is made of a first material and said support is made of a second material, said first material being different from said second material. Doing so allows the counterweight to balance the nozzle body more efficiently (Suttner, Paragraphs 0015-0016).
Suttner 1 and Suttner 2 do not teach a nozzle assembly further comprising at least one elastic element as claimed. Jager teaches a rotary jet nozzle assembly (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising at least one elastic element (35, spring 35 is elastically deformable, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0019) acting on said support (21, spring 35 presses apart rotor parts 21 and 23 by acting a force on them, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0019), directly compressed between a bottom wall (23, shown in Fig. 1) of said containment chamber (internal space within rotor parts 21 and 23, shown in Fig. 1) upstream said support (21, shown in Fig. 1) and adapted to keep, in use, the downstream end (downstream end of nozzle element 41, shown in Fig. 1) of the nozzle body (41, Fig. 1) in abutment against a sliding seat (19, shown in Fig. 1) arranged at said outlet (15, rotor 21, which nozzle element 41 is connected to, is supported and held tight or clamped at bearing 19, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0015, 0019).
Suttner 1, Suttner 2, and Jager are all considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotary jet nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the at least one elastic element taught in Jager to Suttner 1, as modified by Suttner 2, to have the nozzle assembly further comprising at least one elastic element acting on said support, directly compressed between a bottom wall of said containment chamber upstream said support and adapted to keep, in use, said downstream end of said nozzle body in abutment against a sliding seat arranged at said outlet. Doing so allows pressure and/or flow relationships to be influenced in a simple and effective manner by simple construction measures (Jager, Paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 18, Suttner 1, as modified by Suttner 2 and Jager, discloses the rotary jet nozzle assembly according to claim 17. Jager further teaches the elastic element (35, Fig. 1) is arranged between a bottom wall (23, shown in Fig. 1) of said containment chamber (internal space within rotor parts 21 and 23, shown in Fig. 1) and said support (21, shown in Fig. 1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner 1 (EP 1072317) in view of Suttner 2 (DE 20115089 U1, second reference), further in view of Jager (US 20090212129 A1, herein referenced to as Jager 1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jager (US Patent 5,598,975, herein referenced to as Jager 2).
With respect to claim 19, Suttner 1, as modified by Suttner 2 and Jager, discloses the rotary jet nozzle assembly according to claim 17. However, Suttner 1, Suttner 2, and Jager 1 do not teach said elastic element is a disc spring. Jager 2 teaches a rotary jet nozzle assembly (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising said elastic element (51, Fig. 6) is a disc spring (51 is a disk spring, Col. 4, Ln. 39-45).
Suttner 1, Suttner 2, Jager 1, and Jager 2 are all considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotary jet nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the at least one elastic element taught in Jager 2 to Suttner 1, as modified by Suttner 2 and Jager 2, to have said elastic element is a disc spring. Doing so ensures the nozzle rests against the sliding seat even in absence of pressurization (Jager, Col. 4, Ln. 39-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752