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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 19-21, 24, 27-33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 54-167595 taken together with Freeman et al, further in view of Lindsay.
All of the references have been cited by applicant on the IDS filed January 14, 2022.
JP 54-167595 (Figs. 1 and 2; English machine translation) discloses an aspirating spray nozzle (Figs. 1 and 2) having a cylindrical nozzle body (1) that is externally threaded (10) on a first end portion that defines an inlet, the external threads being connectable to a wall, manifold, pipe or another fitting (claim 32), the nozzle having a second end portion (13) defining an outlet and a middle portion between the first and second end portions, an integrated annular shroud (14,16) that includes an external rear wall portion that tapers rearwardly and that encircles at least part of the nozzle body (1), the shroud including a base that is integrally joined to the middle portion of the nozzle body by way of webbing that is formed around the air vents (15) and the shroud having a toothless front end (claims 33 and 36), and a nozzle cap (2) adapted to be connected to the second end portion of the nozzle body (claim 19). The outer edge of the base of the shroud is provided with a plurality of projections (16) that facilitate tool engagement, such as by a pipe wrench, for turning the rotatable spray nozzle (claims 20-21). The webbing formed between the vent openings (15) on the shroud forms evenly spaced spokes around the middle portion of the nozzle (claim 24). The spokes each have a cross-section that has moderate width and relatively long axial length (claim 29) and are disposed slantingly relative to the plane defined by the base of the shroud, which will maximize the Venturi effect of the vents (claim 28). It is noted that the rear portion of the shroud is frustoconical (claim 30), while the outer portion of the shroud is substantially cylindrically shaped (claim 31). While the shroud of JP ‘595 has a rear surface that is tapered, it does not present a tapered external wall (claim 19) on the forward portion of the shroud, as disclosed by applicant’s Figure 5. JP ‘595 also fails to disclose three spokes on the shroud surface that form three arc shaped vents between the spokes, with the side walls of the spokes having a flat middle section with radiused ends, as recited by amended claim 19 and dependent claim 27.
Freeman et al ‘037 (Figs. 3 and 4) disclose an aspirating spray nozzle similar to that of JP ‘595, wherein the nozzle shroud thereof (20,42,44) includes a tapered external wall portion (42) having a placement within the shroud similar to applicant’s disclosed taper (claim 19), the rear portion of the shroud (20) encircling and being connected to the nozzle body thereof by three evenly spaced spokes having sidewalls that have radiused ends, thereby forming three evenly spaced arc shaped vents within the shroud structure (claims 19 and 27). It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the placement of tapered external wall portion of JP ‘595, toward the front portion of the shroud, in view of Freeman et al ‘037, since such would provide a more compact outlet from the overall nozzle, to facilitate spraying of the generated foam to a greater distance from the nozzle to allow for firefighting from a point safer for the fire fighter. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the shape and number of the spokes within the shroud structure of JP ‘595, in view of Freeman et al ‘037, since such would provide a structurally sound device with a greater air throughput, which would facilitate higher foam productivity per unit time.
With regard to the spokes having a flat sidewall portion with radiused ends, as now recited within amended independent claim 19, Lindsay (elements 5, 6, and 12 in Fig. II) clearly teaches such a spoke configuration within an aspirating spray nozzle. As such, it would have been an obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the sidewall configuration of the spokes as suggested by JP ‘595 taken together with Freeman et al ‘037, to have a flat elongate middle section flanked by radiused ends, in view of the disclosure by Lindsay, since such would facilitate increased airflow through the device, thereby producing a higher volume of more consistent product flow.
Claims 22, 34, 35, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference combination as applied to claims 19-21, 23-33, and 36 above, and further in view of JP 8-215336.
The reference combination as applied to claims 19-21, 24, 27-33, and 36 above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 22, 34, 35, and 37-39 except for the tool engagement portion being in the form of a hex structure, as recited by instant claim 22, the tool being in the form of a wrench or spanner, as recited by new claim 37, and the front end of the shroud having teeth of a chosen depth, a depth which may vary, as recited by instant claims 34 and 35, as well as the specific depths of the teeth, as recited by new claims 38 and 39.
JP 8-215336 (Figs. 1 and 2) discloses a spray nozzle having external rear threads for attachment to a manifold, pipe of fitting, a hex nut surface (15) for facilitating turning of the nozzle into the manifold, pipe or fitting, by a tool, such as a wrench or spanner, and a nozzle shroud (2) having teeth on the front end having a chosen depth, which may be a variable depth (4,5). It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the tool engagement portion of the primary reference combination, to be in the form of a hex nut, in view of JP ‘336, since such would provide for easy turning of the nozzle, in a well understood manner, with a conventional wrench or spanner. Furthermore, it would have also been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application to modify the front end of the shroud, as suggested by the primary reference combination, to include teeth of a chosen depth, including a variable depth, in view of JP ‘336, since such would provide a nozzle that would further agitate the fluid exiting the nozzle shroud, thereby facilitating a greater volume of foam formation with the same amount of fluid passing through the nozzle. With regard to the specific teeth depths, as set forth by newly added claims 38 and 39, absent an unexpected showing of criticality, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to arrive at optimal desired teeth depths by way of routine experimentation with the apparatus as suggested by the reference combination applied herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an open system spray nozzle) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claims are also not written in a manner as to preclude the inclusion of any mesh or cage, such that the spray plume can exit without disturbance or change or interruption. While applicant endlessly attacks the applied references based upon features that the references utilize to assist in the formation of foam, stating that one having ordinary skill in the art would never consider eliminating or altering such features, the instant claims are not even directed to foam generation, but instead are broadly defined as an aspirating spray nozzle, which each of the applied references clearly illustrate. While the instant claims include an inlet, an outlet and a vent, there is no claim language to indicate what type or phase of material passes through any of the inlet, outlet or vent. While applicant apparently wishes for the applied prior art to be unduly restricted and only combinable under the narrowest of operational conditions, the instant claims are not at all limited, or even suggestive as being capable of performing any given function on any broadly recited material or materials, to provide or produce any type of recognizable outlet product or product stream.
It is noted that applicant has chosen to recite the claims using the term “including” (claim 19), rather than “comprising”, “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of”, which has been read as open claim terminology. While the instant claims are interpreted as having unrestricted “open” claim terminology, the lack of any basic functional language or a preamble to breathe life and meaning into the claims, leave the claimed invention in the form of a lifeless listing of structural elements. The applied prior art clearly teaches similar aspirating nozzles that encompass the various structures set forth in the claims, the modifications of the reference devices being obvious for the reasons as set forth in the rejection statements above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/10-25-25
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776