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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Karube in view of Johnson and Jameson
Claim 9-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130298626 A1 (“Karube”) in view of US 4681264 A (“Johnson”) and US 20030098364 A1 (“Jameson”).
Karube pertains to a descaling apparatus including a cavitating nozzle (Abstr.; Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0012-0015). Johnson pertains to an apparatus including nozzles for a cavitating liquid jet (Abstr.; Fig. 8). Jameson pertains to a nozzle design for cavitating fluids (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0002-0004, 0047). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 9, Karube discloses a cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0012-0015, 0044), comprising:
a cylindrical pipe (Figs. 4-6, see annotated Fig. 5 below),
and an organ pipe cavitator at a distal end of the cylindrical pipe, configured to deliver a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid (see annotated Fig. 5 below; see discussion below re “organ pipe cavitator”; ¶¶ 0012-0019, 0033, 0044, 0049, the cavitator is capable of delivering a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid),
the organ pipe cavitator comprising:
an inner tip portion with a proximal section toward the cylindrical pipe and a distal section (see annotated Fig. 5 below);
and an interchangeable cavitation insert received in the inner tip portion and secured between the distal end of the cylindrical pipe and the distal section of the inner tip portion (Figs. 4-6; see annotated Fig. 5 below; ¶ 0036-0037, 0042, the cavitation insert is capable of being removed and interchanged with a different cavitation insert (e.g., a second, replacement cavitation insert)).
[AltContent: textbox (“Distal section” of “inner tip portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Proximal section” of “inner tip section”)][AltContent: textbox (“Inner tip portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Interchangeable cavitation insert” (elements 12 and 17))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Distal end of the cylindrical pipe”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical pipe (part of element 2b))][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
1417
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Karube Fig. 5 (annotated)
Karube does not explicitly disclose:
an organ pipe cavitator at a distal end of the cylindrical pipe, configured to deliver a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid,
wherein an inner passage of the interchangeable cavitation insert has an inlet section, a first middle section, a second middle section, and an outlet section, the outlet section disposed between the second middle section and a circular exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert, the inlet section having a first inner diameter, the first middle section having a second inner diameter, the second middle section having a third inner diameter, and the outlet section having a fourth inner diameter, the first inner diameter being larger than the second inner diameter, the second inner diameter being larger than the third inner diameter, and the third inner diameter being larger than the fourth inner diameter.
However, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim.
Johnson discloses:
an organ pipe cavitator at a distal end of the cylindrical pipe, configured to deliver a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid (Fig. 8, cavitating jet shown exiting nozzle; 17:39-41, “Such a Laid-Back Pulser...when tested in water, should also produce enhanced cavitation characteristics”; 17:45-49, “designed for high pressure liquid jet application where the Mach number is greater than 0.08”),
wherein an inner passage of the interchangeable cavitation insert has an inlet section, a first middle section, a second middle section, and an outlet section, the outlet section disposed between the second middle section and a circular exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert, the inlet section having a first inner diameter, the first middle section having a second inner diameter, the second middle section having a third inner diameter, and the outlet section having a fourth inner diameter, the first inner diameter being larger than the second inner diameter, the second inner diameter being larger than the third inner diameter... (see annotated Fig. 8 below; see discussion below re “interchangeable cavitation insert”; Examiner interprets, based on Applicant’s remarks (11/11/2024 Reply at 10, 13), that the “outlet section” is a section within the distal wall of the cavitation insert, and does not mean a “section” that does not include the distal wall of the cavitation insert (e.g., Spec. Figs. 8-14, elements 416, 516, 616, 716)).
[AltContent: textbox (Circular exit opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Organ pipe cavitator)][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical pipe)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Inlet section, first inner diameter Dp)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outlet section, fourth inner diameter D2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First middle section, second inner diameter Dt)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second middle section, third inner diameter D1)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
1382
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Johnson Fig. 8 (annotated)
Jameson discloses:
a[]...cavitator at a distal end of the cylindrical pipe, configured to deliver a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid (Figs 1-2, see annotated Fig. 2 below; ¶ 0047),
wherein an inner passage of the interchangeable cavitation insert has an inlet section, a first middle section, a second middle section, and an outlet section, the outlet section disposed between the second middle section and a circular exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert, the inlet section having a first inner diameter, the first middle section having a second inner diameter, the second middle section having a third inner diameter, and the outlet section having a fourth inner diameter, the first inner diameter being larger than the second inner diameter, the second inner diameter being larger than the third inner diameter, and the third inner diameter being larger than the fourth inner diameter (Figs. 1-2, see annotated Fig. 2 below; ¶ 0023, “The tip 136 may comprise a separate, interchangeable component”; ¶ 0026, circular exit opening with specified diameter ranges; Examiner interprets, based on Applicant’s remarks (11/11/2024 Reply at 10, 13), that the “outlet section” is a section within the distal wall of the cavitation insert, and does not mean a “section” that does not include the distal wall of the cavitation insert (e.g., Spec. Figs. 8-14, elements 416, 516, 616, 716)).
[AltContent: textbox (Circular exit opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cavitator)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical pipe)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First middle section with second inner diameter)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second middle section with third inner diameter)][AltContent: textbox (Inlet section with first inner diameter)][AltContent: textbox (Outlet section with fourth inner diameter)]
PNG
media_image3.png
984
936
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jameson Fig. 2 (annotated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Johnson and Jameson with Karube, modifying the Karube interchangeable cavitation insert (elements 12/17 or element 12 alone) to have the “organ pipe” configuration as taught by Johnson, where the third inner diameter of the second middle section is larger than the fourth inner diameter of the outlet section with a circular exit opening as taught by Jameson. Examiner notes that Jameson teaches an embodiment that includes an interchangeable/removable cavitation insert 136 (Jameson Fig. 1). This modification would have been obvious because with an interchangeable/removable cavitation insert (as taught by Karube and Jameson), a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cavitation insert could be replaced or exchanged for a different nozzle with different fluid/spray characteristics, such as an insert having the claimed organ pipe configuration (see e.g., Jameson Figs. 1, 3, 4-7; ¶ 0023, “The tip 136 may comprise a separate, interchangeable component”; see also US 2666669 A (“Wahlin”) 4:48-54, “readily removable, the nozzle may be readily adapted to other spray capacity or volume by merely substituting a spray tip 13”).
Further, the use (i.e., in the form of an interchangeable/removable cavitation insert) of the organ pipe configuration of Johnson, the outlet section diameter size configuration of Jameson, and the circular exit opening taught by both Johnson and Jameson, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is a matter of design choice and routine optimization, as different geometric configurations (e.g., organ pipe configuration, different section diameters) lead to different fluid cavitation characteristics and could be customized for the task at hand (e.g., better cavitation performance). Johnson discloses various dimensional ratios typical for the organ pipe nozzle of Fig. 8, and explains that the nozzle design dimensions can be found experimentally, where such design dimensions also depend on external variables such as fluid velocity (Johnson 17:50-60, table showing dimensional relationships; 12:23-27, “I have found experimentally that by properly designing the nozzle contour, as will be discussed below, the critical Strouhal number for which the jet structures into discrete rings may be varied from about 0.3 to 0.8.”; 15:58-65; 20:17-23). See Cai, T.; Pan, Y.; Ma, F.; Xu, P., Effects of Organ-Pipe Chamber Geometry on the Frequency and Erosion Characteristics of the Self-Excited Cavitating Waterjet, Energies Feb. 2020, 13, 978. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13040978 (“Cai”) pp. 1-11, discussing the cavitation effects of different organ-pipe chamber geometry, tuning for peak resonance; p. 4, Fig. 2, Table 3, showing certain diametric relationship ranges; p. 4, “to uncover the influence of organ-pipe geometry on the jet’s frequency characteristics, [these geometries] were experimentally researched”. Further, with respect to the claimed diameters, this modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the larger third inner diameter of the second middle section compared to the fourth inner diameter of the outlet section is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid flow and cavitation characteristics (e.g., the Strouhal number). Similarly, the use of a circular exit opening (compared to other shapes such as elliptical as disclosed in Karube Fig. 6) is a known results-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid flow and cavitation characteristics, particularly with respect to the shape of the emerging outflow. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of these variables and found the claimed configuration through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Moreover, Applicant has not disclosed any particular nozzle dimensional geometry (including the exit opening shape) as being critical, and instead indicated that “In some examples, other relative diameters may be selected to optimize the organ pipe effect and/or cavitation intensity.” (Spec. p. 14, lines 6-8). Accordingly, this particular nozzle design is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 10, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 9 as applied above. Karube, Johnson, and Jameson do not explicitly disclose wherein the first inner diameter is at least two times the size of the second inner diameter. However, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination where the first inner diameter is at least two times the size of the second inner diameter because it is a matter of design choice, as different geometric configurations lead to different fluid cavitation characteristics and could be customized for the task at hand (e.g., better cavitation performance). Johnson discloses various dimensional ratios typical for the nozzle of Fig. 8, and explains that the nozzle design dimensions can be found experimentally, where such design dimensions also depend on external variables such as fluid velocity (17:50-60, table showing dimensional relationships; 12:23-27, “I have found experimentally that by properly designing the nozzle contour, as will be discussed below, the critical Strouhal number for which the jet structures into discrete rings may be varied from about 0.3 to 0.8.”; 15:58-65; 20:17-23). This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the ratio of the first inner diameter to the second inner diameter is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid flow and cavitation characteristics (e.g., the Strouhal number). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Further, Applicant has not disclosed any particular nozzle dimensional geometry as being critical, and instead indicated that “In some examples, other relative diameters may be selected to optimize the organ pipe effect and/or cavitation intensity.” (Spec. p. 14, lines 6-8). Accordingly, this particular nozzle dimensional design is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 11, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 9 as applied above. Karube, Johnson, and Jameson do not explicitly disclose wherein the second inner diameter is at least four times the size of the fourth inner diameter. However, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim for the same reasons discussed for claim 10, except as pertaining to this claimed relative dimension relationship instead.
Regarding claim 12, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 9 as applied above. Karube, Johnson, and Jameson do not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second middle sections have a combined length between approximately 5 and 15 mm. However, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim.
Johnson discloses a range of various dimensions and geometric relationships for the nozzle of Fig. 8 (17:45-60). For instance, the diameter of the distal section D1 (Fig. 8) is given as typically under 10mm. Using 2.0mm for D1, Johnson provides that the length of the L1 (“second middle section”) could range typically from 2.0mm to 40mm (17:45-60, “typically 1.0 to 20.0” ratio). While Johnson does not explicitly state the range of what lengths Ls (first middle section) could be, it can be seen in the example of Fig. 8 that the combined length of Ls and L1 could be about 1.5 time the length of L1. Although drawings cannot normally be relied upon to show proportions, Johnson’s Fig. 8 still informs a person of ordinary skill of the geometric relationship (or at least one possibility within a range of possibilities) between L1 and Ls; and if L1 could range typically from 2.0mm to 40mm, then it is apparent that the first and second middle sections Ls and L1 could have a combined length between 5 and 15mm.
Therefore, with this teaching of Johnson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the first and second middle sections have a combined length between approximately 5 and 15 mm because it is a matter of design choice, as different geometric configurations lead to different fluid cavitation characteristics and could be customized for the task at hand (e.g., better cavitation performance), where the nozzle design dimensions can be found experimentally, and where such design dimensions also depend on external variables such as fluid velocity (17:50-60, table showing dimensional relationships; 12:23-27, “I have found experimentally that by properly designing the nozzle contour, as will be discussed below, the critical Strouhal number for which the jet structures into discrete rings may be varied from about 0.3 to 0.8.”; 15:58-65; 20:17-23). This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the combined length of the first and second middle sections is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid flow and cavitation characteristics (e.g., the Strouhal number). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Examiner notes that not only has Applicant not disclosed any particular nozzle dimensional geometry as being critical (Spec. p. 14, lines 6-8, “In some examples, other relative diameters may be selected to optimize the organ pipe effect and/or cavitation intensity.”), but that Applicant has provided no dimensions or geometric relationships pertaining to the embodiment of Fig. 9, including dimensions or ratios for the first and second middle sections (see Spec. p. 15, line 5–p. 16, line 2). Accordingly, this particular nozzle dimensional design is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 13, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 9 as applied above. Johnson further discloses the wherein the organ pipe cavitator is configured to generate a cavitating jet having a Strouhal number between approximately 0.2 and 0.6 (2:29-34, “the velocity of the jet at a Strouhal number within the range of from about 0.2 to about 1.2”).
Regarding claim 15, Karube discloses a cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0012-0015, 0044), comprising:
a cylindrical pipe (Figs. 4-6, see annotated Fig. 5 below),
and a converging cavitator at a distal end of the cylindrical pipe, configured to deliver a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid (see annotated Fig. 5 below; ¶¶ 0012-0019, 0033, 0044, 0049, the cavitator is capable of delivering a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid),
the converging cavitator comprising:
an inner tip portion with a proximal section toward the cylindrical pipe and a distal section (see annotated Fig. 5 below);
and an interchangeable cavitation insert received in the inner tip portion and secured between the distal end of the cylindrical pipe and the distal section of the inner tip portion (Figs. 4-6; see annotated Fig. 5 below; ¶ 0036-0037, 0042, the cavitation insert is capable of being removed and interchanged with a different cavitation insert (e.g., a second, replacement cavitation insert)),
wherein an inner passage of the interchangeable cavitation insert has an inlet section and an outlet section, the inlet section disposed between the distal end of the cylindrical pipe and the outlet section (see annotated Fig. 5 below; Examiner interprets, based on Applicant’s remarks (11/11/2024 Reply at 10, 13), that the “outlet section” is a section within the distal wall of the cavitation insert, and does not mean a “section” that does not include the distal wall of the cavitation insert (e.g., Spec. Figs. 8-14, elements 416, 516, 616, 716); see discussion below re “outlet section”),
the outlet section converging from an entrance to the outlet section to a...exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert (see annotated Fig. 5 below),
and wherein the entrance to the outlet section has a first diameter and the...exit opening has a second diameter, the first diameter being larger than the second diameter (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Distal section” of “inner tip portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Proximal section” of “inner tip portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Inlet section”)][AltContent: textbox (“Inner tip portion”, “converging cavitator” includes the “inner tip portion” and the “interchangeable cavitation insert”)][AltContent: textbox (“Interchangeable cavitation insert” (elements 12 and 17))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Distal end of the cylindrical pipe”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical pipe (part of element 2b))][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
1417
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (“Outlet section” with “entrance” at upper portion and “exit opening” 15 )]Karube Fig. 5 (annotated)
Karube does not explicitly disclose:
a circular exit opening.
And to the extent Karube does not explicitly disclose the limitation “the outlet section converging from an entrance to the outlet section to a...exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert, and wherein the entrance to the outlet section has a first diameter and the...exit opening has a second diameter, the first diameter being larger than the second diameter”, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim.
Jameson discloses the outlet section converging from an entrance to the outlet section to a circular exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert, and wherein the entrance to the outlet section has a first diameter and the circular exit opening has a second diameter, the first diameter being larger than the second diameter (Figs. 1-2, see annotated Fig. 2 below, outlet section converges from entrance opening 160 to exit opening 112 by way of chamber 142 with tapered walls 144; ¶¶ 0025-0026, 0023, 0047).
[AltContent: textbox (“Outlet section” with “entrance” 160 and circular exit opening 112)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
984
936
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jameson Fig. 2 (annotated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Johnson and Jameson with Karube, modifying the outlet section of Karube interchangeable cavitation insert to have the claimed configuration (as taught by Jameson). Examiner notes that Jameson teaches an embodiment that includes an interchangeable/removable cavitation insert 136 (Jameson Fig. 1). This modification would have been obvious because with an interchangeable/removable cavitation insert (as taught by Karube and Jameson), a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cavitation insert could be replaced or exchanged for a different nozzle insert with different fluid/spray characteristics (see e.g., Jameson Figs. 1, 3, 4-7; ¶ 0023, “The tip 136 may comprise a separate, interchangeable component”; see also US 2666669 A (“Wahlin”) 4:48-54, “readily removable, the nozzle may be readily adapted to other spray capacity or volume by merely substituting a spray tip 13”).
Further, this modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is a matter of design choice, as different geometric configurations (including the use of a circular exit opening (compared to other shapes such as elliptical as disclosed in Karube Fig. 6) lead to different fluid cavitation characteristics and could be customized for the task at hand (e.g., better cavitation performance). Jameson teaches that chamber 142 could have a variety of tapered wall configurations (Jameson Figs. 4-7; ¶ 0044), where the wall surfaces 164 and tip 150 could be manipulated “to establish various desirable effects on the liquid stream, for example to increase the flow rate of the liquid, to atomize the liquid, to emulsify the liquid, and/or to cavitate the liquid” (Jameson ¶ 0047). Johnson explains that the nozzle design dimensions can be found experimentally, where such design dimensions also depend on external variables such as fluid velocity (Johnson 17:50-60, table showing dimensional relationships; 12:23-27, “I have found experimentally that by properly designing the nozzle contour, as will be discussed below, the critical Strouhal number for which the jet structures into discrete rings may be varied from about 0.3 to 0.8.”; 15:58-65; 20:17-23). Additionally, Applicant has not disclosed any particular nozzle dimensional geometry as being critical, and instead indicated that “In some examples, other relative diameters may be selected to optimize the organ pipe effect and/or cavitation intensity.” (Spec. p. 14, lines 6-8) (see also Spec. p. 4, lines 13-18 “Dimensions of the inner passage geometry such as resonance chamber length or angle of conicity may be selected or tuned to optimize resulting increases to cavitation intensity.”). Accordingly, this particular nozzle design is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 16, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 15 as applied above. Karube, Johnson, and Jameson do not explicitly disclose wherein a cross-sectional area of the circular exit opening is between approximately 10 and 30 percent less than a cross-sectional area of the entrance. However, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the cross-sectional area of the circular exit opening to be approximately 10 and 30 percent less than the cross-sectional area of the entrance because it is a matter of design choice, as different geometric configurations lead to different fluid cavitation characteristics and could be customized for the task at hand. Jameson discloses various configurations for the outlet section of the nozzle and explains, “Manipulation of the reflective surfaces 164 and the tip 150 can be made to work together to establish various desirable effects on the liquid stream, for example to increase the flow rate of the liquid, to atomize the liquid, to emulsify the liquid, and/or to cavitate the liquid.” (Jameson ¶ 0047; Figs. 4-7). Based on this Jameson teaching, and the Johnson teaching that nozzle design dimensions can be found experimentally, accounting for external variables such as fluid velocity (Johnson 17:50-60; 12:23-27; 15:58-65; 20:17-23), a person of ordinary skill would perform routine experiments to discover a workable dimensional design range for the outlet section, including the limitation “wherein a cross-sectional area of the exit opening is between approximately 10 and 30 percent less than a cross-sectional area of the entrance opening” because “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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the entrance opening and exit opening is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid flow and cavitation characteristics (Jameson Figs. 4-5). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Applicant has not disclosed that there is any criticality in this 10 to 30 percent cross-sectional area relationship (see Spec. p. 24, lines 3-5). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that cavitation performance obtained from this relationship of the cross-sectional area would still depend on other design aspects, including other aspects of nozzle geometry and fluid velocity (unrelated to geometry). Accordingly, this particular nozzle dimensional design is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 17, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 15 as applied above. Jameson further discloses wherein the outlet section is defined by an inner wall of the converging cavitator (Fig. 1, tapered wall 144), the inner wall forming an angle of at least approximately 8 degrees with a central axis of the nozzle (Fig. 4, showing an angle of 30 degrees with the central axis of the nozzle).
The obviousness rationale for claim 17 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 15 as applied above. Jameson further discloses wherein the outlet section is frusticonical (Fig. 1, tapered walls 144; ¶ 0026, “The tapered walls 144 may be frustoconical”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 18 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 15 as applied above. Jameson further discloses wherein the outlet section is defined by an inner wall of the converging cavitator (Fig. 6, tapered wall 164), the inner wall converging non-linearly from the entrance to the circular exit opening (Fig. 6, showing non-linear converging walls 164 from proximal opening (near 150) to distal opening 112).
The obviousness rationale for claim 19 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 21, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 15 as applied above. Jameson further discloses wherein the outlet section is defined by approximately parabolic inner walls (Fig. 6, showing parabolic walls 164 due to the reflections of force lines 162 having a common focal point as shown).
The obviousness rationale for claim 21 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 22, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 15 as applied above. Jameson further discloses wherein the outlet section has curved inner walls that converge from a larger entrance diameter to a smaller exit diameter (Fig. 6, showing curved inner walls 164 that converse from the entrance opening to the exit opening).
The obviousness rationale for claim 22 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 23, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 17 as applied above. Karube, Johnson, and Jameson do not explicitly disclose wherein the inner wall forms an angle between approximately 1 and 15 degrees with a central axis of the nozzle. However, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the angle of the inner wall of the outlet section to form an angle between approximately 1 and 15 degrees with a central axis of the nozzle because it is a matter of design choice, as different geometric configurations lead to different fluid cavitation characteristics and could be customized for the task at hand. Jameson discloses various configurations for the outlet section of the nozzle, including a 30 degree and 45 degree angle (Figs. 4-5), and explains, “Manipulation of the reflective surfaces 164 and the tip 150 can be made to work together to establish various desirable effects on the liquid stream, for example to increase the flow rate of the liquid, to atomize the liquid, to emulsify the liquid, and/or to cavitate the liquid.” (Jameson ¶ 0047; Figs. 4-7). Based on this Jameson teaching, and the Johnson teaching that nozzle design dimensions can be found experimentally, accounting for external variables such as fluid velocity (Johnson 17:50-60; 12:23-27; 15:58-65; 20:17-23), a person of ordinary skill would perform routine experiments to discover a workable dimensional design range for the outlet section, including the limitation “wherein the inner wall forms an angle between approximately 1 and 15 degrees with a central axis of the nozzle” because “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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the angle of the tapered wall is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid flow and cavitation characteristics (Jameson Figs. 4-5). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Applicant has not disclosed that there is any criticality for this angle range of 1 to 15 degrees (see Spec. p. 17, lines 10-13). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that cavitation performance obtained from this angle range would still depend on other design aspects, including other aspects of nozzle geometry and fluid velocity (unrelated to geometry). Accordingly, this particular nozzle dimensional design is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Karube in view of Johnson, Jameson, and Sanders
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130298626 A1 (“Karube”) in view of US 4681264 A (“Johnson”), US 20030098364 A1 (“Jameson”), and US 20190062858 A1 (“Sanders”).
Karube pertains to a descaling apparatus including a cavitating nozzle (Abstr.; Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0012-0015). Johnson pertains to an apparatus including nozzles for a cavitating liquid jet (Abstr.; Fig. 8). Jameson pertains to a nozzle design for cavitating fluids (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0002-0004, 0047). Sanders pertains to a cavitation device having nozzles for cavitation peening (¶¶ 0006-0007). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 14, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 9 as applied above. Karube further discloses a nozzle assembly comprising the cavitation peening nozzle of claim 9 wherein the nozzle assembly is configured to deliver a first stream of fluid through the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 3-6; ¶ 0033, nozzle assembly (elements 1 and 61) is capable of delivering a first stream of fluid through the cavitation peening nozzle 1.
Karube, Johnson, and Jameson do not explicitly disclose:
the nozzle assembly configured to deliver...a second stream of fluid concentrically around the first stream through an outer nozzle, the first stream being delivered at higher pressure than the second stream.
However, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious this claim.
Sanders discloses the nozzle assembly (Figs. 4, 5A-C, 6, nozzle assembly 212; ¶ 0056) configured to deliver a first stream of fluid through the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 4, 5A-C, 6, fluid flows through channel 258 of inner cavitation peening nozzle 264 to produce inner stream 220; ¶ 0056), and a second stream of fluid concentrically around the first stream through an outer nozzle (Figs. 4, 5A-C, 6, outer nozzle 262 for outer stream 222, which is concentric around first stream 220; ¶ 0059), the first stream being delivered at higher pressure than the second stream (¶ 0058, “Conduit 226 is connected to inner channel 258 and supplies fluid at a first pressure, while conduit 224 is connected to outer channel 260 and supplies fluid at a second pressure...The first pressure is higher than the second pressure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Sanders with the Karube/Johnson/Jameson, adding the Karube/Johnson/Jameson cavitation peening nozzle to a nozzle assembly as taught by Sanders that includes an outer nozzle. This is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The Sanders nozzle assembly already includes an inner cavitation nozzle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the difference in cavitation performance between the nozzle design disclosed in Sanders and the one in Karube (and the proposed Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination), and it would have been simple to swap (or modify) one cavitation nozzle for the other (while keeping the Sanders outer nozzle and the Sanders nozzle assembly the same) in order to obtain the desired cavitation performance for the task at hand. In fact, Sanders contemplates using different inner cavitation nozzles: “Inner channel 258 is defined by an inner nozzle 264 which is shown with a cavitator, spacer, and nozzle plate. Inner nozzle 264 may also have any effective geometry.” (Sanders ¶ 0057).
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 14, except as depending from claim 15 instead of claim 9.
Karube in view of Jameson
Claims 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130298626 A1 (“Karube”) in view of US 20030098364 A1 (“Jameson”).
Karube pertains to a descaling apparatus including a cavitating nozzle (Abstr.; Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0012-0015). Jameson pertains to a nozzle design for cavitating fluids (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0002-0004, 0047). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 24, Karube discloses a cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0012-0015, 0044), comprising:
a cylindrical pipe (Figs. 4-6, see annotated Fig. 5 below),
an inner tip portion with a proximal section toward the cylindrical pipe and a distal section, the proximal section at a distal end of the cylindrical pipe (see annotated Fig. 5 below),
and an interchangeable cavitation insert received in the inner tip portion and secured between the distal end of the cylindrical pipe and the distal section of the inner tip portion (Figs. 4-6; see annotated Fig. 5 below; ¶ 0036-0037, 0042, the cavitation insert is capable of being removed and interchanged with a different cavitation insert (e.g., a second, replacement cavitation insert)),
the interchangeable cavitation insert configured to deliver a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid (see annotated Fig. 5 below; ¶¶ 0012-0019, 0033, 0044, 0049, the cavitation insert is capable of delivering a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid),
wherein an inner passage of the interchangeable cavitation insert has an inlet section, a middle section, and an outlet section, the outlet section disposed between the middle section and a...exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert, the inlet section having a first inner diameter, the middle section having a second inner diameter, and the outlet section having a third inner diameter, the first inner diameter being larger than the second inner diameter, and the second inner diameter being larger than the third inner diameter (see annotated Fig. 5 below; Examiner interprets, based on Applicant’s remarks (11/11/2024 Reply at 10, 13), that the “outlet section” is a section within the distal wall of the cavitation insert, and does not mean a “section” that does not include the distal wall of the cavitation insert (e.g., Spec. Figs. 8-14, elements 416, 516, 616, 716)).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Proximal section” of “inner tip portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Distal section” of “inner tip portion”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Inner tip portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Interchangeable cavitation insert” (elements 12 and 17))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Middle section with second inner diameter)][AltContent: textbox (Inlet section with first inner diameter)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Distal end of the cylindrical pipe”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical pipe (part of element 2b))][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
1417
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Outlet section with third inner diameter with “exit opening” 15)]Karube Fig. 5 (annotated)
Karube does not explicitly disclose:
a circular exit opening.
However, the Karube/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim.
Jameson discloses a circular exit opening (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0023, “The tip 136 may comprise a separate, interchangeable component”; ¶ 0026, circular exit opening with specified diameter ranges).
The obviousness rationale for claim 24 is the same as for claim 9 (particularly with respect to the modification of Karube’s elliptical exit opening to Jameson’s circular exit opening).
Regarding claim 25, the Karube/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 24 as applied above. Karube further discloses a nozzle assembly comprising the cavitation peening nozzle of claim 24 that includes a plurality of interchangeable cavitation inserts, wherein the nozzle is configured to allow replacement of the interchangeable cavitation insert with another interchangeable cavitation insert of the plurality of interchangeable cavitation inserts (Figs. 4-6; ¶ 0036-0037, 0042, the cavitation insert is capable of being removed and interchanged with a different cavitation insert (e.g., a second, replacement cavitation insert)).
To the extent Karube does not explicitly disclose this claim, the Karube/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify Karube to have a plurality of interchangeable cavitation inserts, because a plurality of interchangeable cavitation inserts would allow for replacement in case of damage or for a different application (e.g., providing a different spraying/cavitation characteristic). Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to having a plurality of interchangeable cavitation inserts. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 26, the Karube/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 25 as applied above. Karube further discloses wherein:
the plurality of interchangeable cavitation inserts further includes a second interchangeable cavitation insert that has a second inlet section and a second outlet section (Fig. 5, the second interchangeable cavitation insert has the same insert geometry as what is shown; see annotated Fig. 5 below),
the second outlet section converges linearly from a second entrance to a second exit opening (see annotated Fig. 5 below; ¶ 0045, the sidewalls of the second outlet section converge linearly).
and when the second interchangeable cavitation insert is received between the distal end of the cylindrical pipe and the inner tip portion, the second exit opening is disposed at a distal end of the cavitation peening nozzle (see annotated Fig. 5 below, “distal end” of the cavitation peening nozzle is at the bottom of Fig. 5).
[AltContent: textbox (“Inner tip portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Second outlet section”, “second entrance opening” at the upper portion and “second exit opening” 15)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Interchangeable cavitation insert” (elements 12 and 17))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Second inlet section”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Distal end of the cylindrical pipe”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
1417
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Karube Fig. 5 (annotated)
The obviousness rationale for claim 26 is the same as for claim 25.
Regarding claim 27, the Karube/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 24 as applied above. Karube further discloses wherein the interchangeable cavitation insert includes a cylindrical outer wall with a shoulder at a proximal end, the shoulder being trapped between the cylindrical pipe and the inner tip portion (Figs. 4-6, see annotated Fig. 5 for claim 24 above, insert has a cylindrical outer wall with a shoulder (at reference 13 and/or near reference 24), which is trapped between the cylindrical pipe (part of element 2b) and the inner tip portion 11.
Regarding claim 28, the Karube/Jameson combination makes obvious the nozzle of claim 24 as applied above.
Karube further discloses wherein the outlet section of the interchangeable cavitation insert comprise the...exit opening which is disposed at a distal end of the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 4-6, see annotated Fig. 5 for claim 24 above, “distal end” of the cavitation peening nozzle is at the bottom of Fig. 5).
Jameson further discloses a circular exit opening (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0023, “The tip 136 may comprise a separate, interchangeable component”; ¶ 0026, circular exit opening with specified diameter ranges).
The obviousness rationale for claim 28 is the same as for claim 24.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 1-8 have been canceled. Claims 9-28 are pending. Claims 9-28 are rejected.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the objections to the claims are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 9, 15, and 24 generally rely on a characterization of the prior art in light of the disclosed invention in the specification. Examiner notes that the rejections stated above rely on the cited source documents and not on Applicant’s characterization of the prior art. Further, Applicant appears to argue that the rejections of record fail to account for certain features of the invention but relies on limitations that are not recited in the rejected claims, such as pointing to numbered features of Figs. 3, 4, and 8-10 (Reply at 9-11, 15-18). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP § 2145(VI). Applicant’s arguments concerning a “circular exit opening” are addressed in the rejections of claims 9, 15, and 24 above. Further, for the reasons discussed in the rejections above, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the proposed combinations fail to make obvious the recited combinations of claims 9, 15, and 24.
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723