DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 42-43, 45-48, 50-52, 55, 57-66, and 68-69 are pending in the application. Claim 67 has been canceled. Claims 68-69 have been added. Claims 1-41, 44, 49, 53-54, and 56 were previously canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action of 24 February 2026.
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 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.
Claims 42-43, 45-46, 50, 55, 57, 60-61, 63-66, and 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godec (US 5,087,355) in view of Fecht et al. (US 2008/0283635) and Arcella et al. (US 4,140,337).
Regarding claim 42, Godec discloses a pipeline apparatus comprising a pipeline (12/13), and a nozzle apparatus (14/30), comprising
a filter (30), the filter comprising,
a tube (fig. 5) extending from a first end to a second end (fig. 5), the first end tapering opposite the second end (fig. 5), the tube having an outlet (37) from the tube at the second end (fig. 3), the tube defining a bore available for longitudinal fluid flow having an internal cross-section (fig. 5), wherein the internal cross-section of the bore defined by the tube is the same along at least 75% of its length (fig. 5); the tube having,
a plurality of slots (32) in the tube between an outside thereof and the bore (fig. 5), the slots extending generally parallel to a longitudinal direction, from the first end to the second end (fig. 5 – each slot extends a distance along this direction), wherein the internal cross-section is inset with respect to the plurality of slots (fig. 5 - the internal cross-section is inset radially from the slots);
an outlet (37) from the tube at the second end (fig. 5);
a nozzle connector (36) for mounting a nozzle thereto (14, col. 4, ln. 22-23);
a pipeline connector (34) for connection to a pipeline (col. 4, ln. 17-20; fig. 3);
wherein the filter is a single piece (fig. 5);
a nozzle (14) with a nozzle outlet (col. 1, ln. 15-16), the nozzle outlet having a nozzle outlet cross-sectional area (col. 1, ln. 15-16), wherein the filter is removably coupled to the nozzle (col. 4, ln. 22-23 - via the screw 37);
wherein a totality of a flowpath from the plurality of slots to the filter outlet is devoid of an obstruction (fig. 55).
Godec does not disclose,
firstly, the tube having an inlet at least partially opposite the outlet from the tube at the second end or that a dominant direction of the slots is generally parallel to said longitudinal direction,
and secondly, a reducer that defines a bore with an internal thread at a first end and having an external connector at an opposite end, the external connector having a greater diameter than a diameter of the internal thread, and wherein the filter is mounted to the first end of the reducer via the internal thread, such that the tube extends through the bore of the reducer past the external connector and beyond the opposite end thereof.
Fecht discloses a nozzle apparatus (10, see fig. 1), comprising a filter (16, see par. 55, fig. 3) comprising a tube extending from a first end to a second end (fig. 3 - top end and bottom end, respectively), the tube having an inlet (48) at least partially opposite an outlet (56) from the tube at the second end (fig. 3), and the tube having a plurality of slots (par. 66 – “entrance slots”; figs. 1, 3) having a dominant direction that is generally parallel to a longitudinal direction (figs. 1, 3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle apparatus of Godec to further have an inlet at least partially opposite the outlet from the tube at the second end and slots with a dominant direction generally parallel to said longitudinal direction, as taught by Fecht. The former would provide additional flow openings into the filter, which would improve flow therethrough and also mitigate the possibility of the filter becoming blocked. The latter was known to gradually deflect liquid as it enters the filter towards the longitudinal axis in order to reduce turbulence and lead to a low flow resistance and uniform flow (see Fecht, par. 67).
Arcella teaches a coupling assembly comprising a reducer (15) that defines a bore (figs. 1-3) with an internal thread (17) at a first end (fig. 2 – left end) and having an external connector (16) at an opposite end (fig. 2 – right end), the external connector having a greater diameter than a diameter of the internal thread (fig. 2), and wherein a tube (23) is mounted to the first end of the reducer via the internal thread (figs. 1-3), such that the tube extends through the bore of the reducer past the external connector and beyond the opposite end thereof (col. 3, ln. 22-26; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle apparatus of Godec to further include a reducer that defines a bore with an internal thread at a first end and having an external connector at an opposite end, the external connector having a greater diameter than a diameter of the internal thread, and wherein the filter is mounted to the first end of the reducer via the internal thread, such that the tube extends through the bore of the reducer past the external connector and beyond the opposite end thereof, as taught by Arcella. This was known to provide a means for fluidly connecting to a fluid conduit (col. 2, ln. 19-24; fig. 1), which would provide the ability to connect the nozzle and filter assembly of Godec to a pipeline.
Regarding claim 43, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and Fecht further teaches the first end being dome-shaped (par. 66; figs. 1, 3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first end of the tube of the nozzle apparatus of Godec to make it dome-shaped, as further taught by Fecht, since a dome-shape would eliminate any sharp corners from the first end while still maintaining the taper, which would mitigate the formation of fluid vortices forming as the fluid flows around the first end.
Regarding claim 45, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further wherein the nozzle connector comprises a thread (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 46, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and wherein the slots extend for up to fifty percent of the length of the tube (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 50, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and wherein the nozzle apparatus is added to an end of the pipeline (13/20), and extends therein, substantially parallel to the main longitudinal axis of the pipeline (figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 55, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further wherein the inlet of the tube has an inlet cross-sectional area smaller than the nozzle outlet cross-sectional area (Godec, as modified to include the inlets 48 of Fecht, has an outlet 37 with a larger cross-sectional area).
Regarding claim 57, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further wherein the slots extend for up to seventy-five percent of the length of the tube (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 60, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and wherein the tube comprises a threaded nozzle connector proximate the outlet (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 61, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further wherein the tube comprises a threaded pipeline connector located between the first end and the outlet (fig. 5), the threaded pipeline connector being on the outside of the tube (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 63, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further wherein the pipeline connector comprises a thread (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 64, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further a sprinkler system (fig. 1) for one of fire-fighting and fire-containment (fig. 1 – the sprinkler system would be able to fight a wildfire) comprising the pipeline apparatus.
Regarding claim 65, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further wherein the inlet of the tube has an inlet cross-sectional area which is less than the cross-sectional area of the bore defined by the tube (Godec, as modified to include the inlets 48 of Fecht, has a tube bore with a larger cross-sectional area, see fig. 3 of Fecht).
Regarding claim 66, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and Arcella further teaches wherein the reducer comprises a reducing bush and the external connector comprises an external thread (figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 68, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and Arcella further teaches wherein the reducer is a one-piece solid block with a single internal bore being said bore with the internal thread (figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 69, Godec in view of Fecht and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 68, and wherein the outlet (37) from the tube at the second end (fig. 5) has an outlet cross-sectional area larger than an internal cross-section of each of the plurality of slots (fig. 5).
Claims 42, 47-48, 51-52, 58-59, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeuchi et al. (US 2003/0052199) in view of Godec and Arcella.
Regarding claim 42, Ikeuchi discloses a pipeline apparatus comprising a pipeline (15), a reducer (40/41) and a nozzle apparatus (fig. 1; par. 84), comprising
a filter (14) comprising,
a tube (30) extending from a first end to a second end (fig. 5A), the first end tapering opposite the second end (fig. 5A), the tube having an inlet (fig. 5C – a portion of the 34 extends through the first end) at least partially opposite an outlet (32) from the tube at the second end (fig. 5C);
the tube defining a bore available for longitudinal fluid flow having an internal cross-section (fig. 1 – the bore is interpreted to be the portion indicated with "C”, flow through the bore will be from the end having the slots toward element 13), wherein the internal cross-section of the bore defined by the tube is the same along at least 75% of its length (fig. 1);
the tube having,
a plurality of slots (34) in the tube between an outside thereof and the bore (par. 104; fig. 5C), the slots extending generally parallel to a longitudinal direction, from the first end to the second end (fig. 5A), such that a dominant direction of the slots is generally parallel to said longitudinal direction (figs. 5A, 5C) and wherein the internal cross-section is inset with respect to the plurality of slots (fig. 1 - the internal cross-section is inset radially from the slots);
a nozzle connector for mounting a nozzle thereto (13, see par. 100 – “A screw 13b formed on the peripheral surface of an end side of the adapter 13 at its upstream side is tightened into an end of the housing 30 of the strainer 14 at its downstream side to connect the adapter 13 and the strainer 14”);
wherein the filter is a single piece (fig. 5);
a nozzle (12/13) with a nozzle outlet (20, the nozzle outlet having a nozzle outlet cross-sectional area (figs. 1, 2A, 2B), wherein the filter is removably coupled to the nozzle (fig. 1; par. 100 - via the screw 13b);
wherein a totality of a flowpath from the plurality of slots to the outlet is devoid of an obstruction (fig. 5C);
wherein the reducer defines a bore (fig. 1), and wherein the filter is mounted to the first end of the reducer (fig. 1).
Ikeuchi further discloses a pipeline connector (11, see par. 87) for connection to a pipeline (fig. 1), but does not disclose that this is part of the tube and formed in a single piece with the filter. Ikeuchi also does not disclose wherein the reducer defines a bore with an internal thread at a first end, and having an external connector at an opposite end, the external connector having a greater diameter than a diameter of the internal thread, and that the tube extends through the bore of the reducer past the external connector and beyond the opposite end thereof.
Godec teaches the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42 above; in particular, wherein the pipeline connector is formed in a single piece with the filter as part of the tube. Arcella teaches a reducer that defines a bore with an internal thread at a first end, and has an external connector at an opposite end, the external connector having a greater diameter than a diameter of the internal thread, and that the tube extends through the bore of the reducer past the external connector and beyond the opposite end thereof.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pipeline connector of the nozzle apparatus of Ikeuchi to form it in a single piece with the filter as part of the tube, as taught by Godec, since this would reduce the number of different parts required by the assembly thereby reducing its complexity. And, it has been held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Further, forming the pipeline connector on the tube would arrange the pipeline connector at the location of the pipe (see Ikeuchi, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Ikeuchi such that the reducer defines a bore with an internal thread at a first end, and has an external connector at an opposite end, the external connector having a greater diameter than a diameter of the internal thread, and that the tube extends through the bore of the reducer past the external connector and beyond the opposite end thereof, as taught by Arcella. Such a modification would simplify the assembly by combining elements 40 and 41 of Ikeuchi into a single part and further reduce its complexity.
Regarding claim 47, Ikeuchi in view of Godec and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and wherein the slots have a width of between one millimeter and 3 millimeters (par. 101 - slots 34 have a width of 1.1 mm).
Regarding claim 48, Ikeuchi in view of Godec and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42. Ikeuchi further discloses that the slots have a width of 1.1 mm and are arranged at intervals of 15° (par. 101); however, Ikeuchi does not explicitly disclose the distance between the slots, and specifically that the spacing between the further inlets is 50%-150% larger than the width of the slots.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a spacing between the further inlets that is 50%-150% larger than the width of the slots since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to experiment with the width of the slots of the filter of Ikeuchi in order find the optimum value such that the flow resistance of the filter is minimized while ensuring debris and foreign particles are prevented from passing through, and the spacing between each of the further inlets is a function of the optimum width of the slots.
Regarding claim 51, Ikeuchi in view of Godec and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further wherein the nozzle apparatus is added to the pipeline, and extends therein, substantially at a right angle to the main longitudinal axis of the pipeline (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 52, Ikeuchi in view of Godec and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 51, and further wherein the first end extends into the central 10% of the pipeline (fig. 1 – the first end of the filter extends into the center of the pipeline).
Regarding claim 58, Ikeuchi in view of Godec and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further wherein the slots have a width of between one millimeter and 3 millimeters (par. 101 - slots 34 have a width of 1.1 mm), but not wherein the slots have a width of between one and a half millimeters and two and a half millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a width of between one and a half millimeters and two and a half millimeters for the slots since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to experiment with the width of the slots of the filter of Ikeuchi in order find the optimum value such that the flow resistance of the filter is minimized while ensuring debris and foreign particles are prevented from passing through.
Regarding claim 59, Ikeuchi in view of Godec and Arcella discloses the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42, and further wherein the filter includes a first wall forming the plurality of slots (fig. 1 – at the slots), a second wall thickness downstream from the plurality of slots delineating a constant internal cross-section (fig. 1 – wall at 13a), and a third wall thickness the proximate the outlet and downstream from the second wall thickness (fig. 4 – at the flange of 13a); and, wherein the second wall thickness is less than the third wall thickness, and the second wall thickness and the third wall thickness are each greater than the first wall thickness (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 62, Ikeuchi discloses a pipeline apparatus comprising a pipeline (15), a reducer (40/41) and a nozzle apparatus (fig. 1; par. 84) comprising,
a filter (14) comprising,
a tube (30) extending from a first end to a second end (fig. 5A), the first end tapering opposite the second end (fig. 5A), the tube having an inlet (fig. 5C – a portion of the 34 extends through the first end) at least partially opposite an outlet (32) from the tube at the second end (fig. 5C), the tube defining a bore available for longitudinal fluid flow having an internal cross-section (fig. 1 – the bore is interpreted to be the portion indicated with "C”, flow through the bore will be from the end having the slots toward element 13) wherein the internal cross-section of the bore defined by the tube is the same along at least 75% of its length (fig. 1), the tube having:
a plurality of slots (34) in the tube between an outside thereof and the bore (par. 104; fig. 5C), the slots extending generally parallel to a longitudinal direction, from the first end to the second end (fig. 5A), such that a dominant direction of the slots is generally parallel to said longitudinal direction (figs. 5A, 5C), and
wherein the internal cross-section is inset with respect to the plurality of slots (fig. 1 - the internal cross-section is inset radially from the slots);
a nozzle connector for mounting a nozzle thereto (13, see par. 100 – “A screw 13b formed on the peripheral surface of an end side of the adapter 13 at its upstream side is tightened into an end of the housing 30 of the strainer 14 at its downstream side to connect the adapter 13 and the strainer 14”);
wherein the filter is a single piece (fig. 5);
wherein a totality of the bore downstream from the plurality of slots to the outlet of the tube is devoid of an internal constriction (fig. 5C);
a nozzle (11/12/13) with a nozzle outlet (20, the nozzle outlet having a nozzle outlet cross-sectional area (figs. 1, 2A, 2B), wherein the filter is removably coupled to the nozzle (fig. 1; par. 100 - via the screw 13b);
wherein the reducer defines a bore (fig. 1), and wherein the filter is mounted to a first end of the reducer (fig. 1).
Ikeuchi further discloses a pipeline connector (40, see par. 87) for connection to a pipeline (fig. 1), but does not disclose that this is part of the tube and formed in a single piece with the filter. Ikeuchi also does not disclose wherein the reducer defines a bore with an internal thread at a first end, and having an external connector at an opposite end, the external connector having a greater diameter than a diameter of the internal thread; wherein the reducer is a one-piece solid block with a single internal bore being the bore with the internal thread.
Godec teaches the pipeline apparatus described regarding claim 42 above; in particular, wherein the pipeline connector is formed in a single piece with the filter as part of the tube. Arcella teaches a reducer that defines a bore with an internal thread at a first end, and has an external connector at an opposite end, the external connector having a greater diameter than a diameter of the internal thread, as described regarding claim 42; and wherein the reducer is a one-piece solid block with a single internal bore being the bore with the internal thread, as described regarding claim 68.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pipeline connector of the nozzle apparatus of Ikeuchi to form it in a single piece with the filter as part of the tube, as taught by Godec, since this would reduce the number of different parts required by the assembly thereby reducing its complexity. And, it has been held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Further, forming the pipeline connector on the tube would arrange the pipeline connector at the location of the pipe (see Ikeuchi, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Ikeuchi such that the reducer defines a bore with an internal thread at a first end, and has an external connector at an opposite end, the external connector having a greater diameter than a diameter of the internal thread; and wherein the reducer is a one-piece solid block with a single internal bore being the bore with the internal thread, as taught by Arcella. Such a modification would simplify the assembly by combining elements 40 and 41 of Ikeuchi into a single part and further reduce its complexity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added limitations to the reducing bushing 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.
Applicant's arguments regarding the combination of Ikeuchi and Godec have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the proposed modification to Ikeuchi to provide the pipeline connector on the tube would not have been obvious because strainer 14 of Ikeuchi “has no structural rigidity to support the whole device” is not found convincing because it is not supported by any evidence or technical reasoning.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Ikeuchi and Godec, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the references are being combined because the modification will result in simplifying the apparatus of Ikeuchi, as described in more detail above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights