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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The substitute specification, as filed on April 20, 2026 is objected to since it does not include the text of the of the language added to page 1 of the specification by the preliminary amendment as filed on January 14, 2022.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and Lindsay, further in view of GB 441,441.
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 having 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, but not specifically claimed within the instant claims. 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 recited within 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.
With regard to the language added to the end of independent claim 19, by the amendment filed with the RCE on April 20, 2026, specifically directed to the shroud being fully open to provide no impediment to generating a centrally disposed wide full coverage conical spray plume of dispersed foam, the disclosure of GB 441,441 (Fig. 1; page 1, lines 60-86) is noted wherein a foam is produced within an aspirating spray nozzle, the air being sucked into the shroud (i) that is connected to the nozzle body (a) to form an annular flow of air through annular inlet (k), the shroud being fully open to provide no impediment to generating a centrally disposed conical plume of dispersed foam (o). Wherein the need for a screen mesh downstream of the nozzle is dependent upon the foaming composition used, as well as the pressure and volumetric flow of the water and foaming composition through the device, which will determine the amount of suction applied to the air inlets in the shroud, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application, would have looked to GB 441,441, to modify the device as suggested by the reference combination of JP 54-167595 taken together with Freeman et al and Lindsay, to determine that a foam forming nozzle with a surrounding shroud would function quite suitably to form a desired dispersed foam flow by using a shroud that is fully open without any impediment therein to a centrally disposed conical spray of dispersed foam.
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 with respect to claims 19-22, 24, and 27-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference combination as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, i.e., the shroud being fully open with no impediment to the generating of a centrally disposed conical spray plume of dispersed foam.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should note the disclosure of GB 444,259 cited herein as of interest to the claimed invention.
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/8-8-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights