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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 23rd, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 23rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5, and 7 remain pending in the application. Claims 3-4 and 6 have been canceled by the applicant and claim 7 is newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 24th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the dead hollow zone” in ln. 21 should be revised to “the fluid hollow dead zone” to ensure consistency of terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the dead hollow zone” in ln. 1-2 should be revised to “the fluid hollow dead zone” to ensure consistency of terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nushart et al. (US 20140263754 A1) in view of Juttelstad et al. (US Patent 4,193,550) and Van Dijke et al. (WO 2015036516 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nushart teaches a low pressure washer nozzle tip system (52, 90, Figs. 1-3, Paragraphs 0036-0037) comprising:
a nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) having an exterior surface (external surface of flow body 92, shown in Figs. 2-3) and an interior surface (internal surface of flow body 92, shown in Fig. 3) and a hollow interior (104, 150, shown in Fig. 3);
a threaded member (not explicitly shown, but nozzle assembly 52 can have a threaded connection to the wand 46, and nozzle assembly 90 has the same structure as nozzle assembly 52, Paragraphs 0032, 0037) on the nozzle tip (92, flow body 92 connects to wand 46, shown in Fig. 3);
at least a first fluid exit opening (144, 146, Figs. 2-3) on the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) wherein the at least first fluid exit opening (144, Figs. 2-3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) allows for a passage of a fluid from the generally hollow interior (104, shown in Fig. 3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) out of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) through the at least first fluid exit opening (144, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0039-0042);
a second fluid exit opening (146, Figs. 2-3) of the nozzle tip (tip of nozzle assembly 90, shown in Figs. 2-3) wherein the second fluid opening (146, Figs. 2-3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) is parallel to the first fluid exit opening (144, Figs. 2-3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3);
an axis line (110, Fig. 3) within the hollow interior (104, 150, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0040) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) wherein the axis line (110, Fig. 3) is parallel to a side wall (152, Fig. 3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3); and
wherein the first fluid exit opening (144, Figs. 2-3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) is at an angle with respect to the axis line (110, shown in Fig. 3) of the hollow interior (104, 150, Fig. 3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3).
However, Nushart does not disclose a partially cone-shaped nozzle tip having an exterior surface and an interior surface and a hollow interior and having a distal end located at a tip of the cone-shape and a retaining nut as claimed. Juttelstad teaches a low pressure washer nozzle tip system (entire system, Fig. 1) comprising:
a partially cone-shaped nozzle tip (20, Figs. 2-3) having an exterior surface (21, shown in Fig. 2) and an interior surface (46, 55, 56, shown in Fig. 2) and a hollow interior (45, internal space between the nozzle body 21 and the walls 55, 56, shown in Fig. 2) and having a distal end (23, Fig. 2) located at a tip (54, shown in Fig. 2) of the cone-shape (20, shown in Fig. 2);
a retaining nut (34, jam nut 34 connects to brass insert 26 to retain the spray head 20, Figs. 2-3, Col. 2, Ln. 12-16); and
a threaded member (29, Fig. 3) on a nozzle tip (20, Figs. 1-4) and a threaded member (not explicitly shown, but jam nut 34 has threads within to threadably connect to the threads 29, Col. 2, Ln. 12-16) on the retaining nut (34, Figs. 2-3) wherein the threaded member (29, Fig. 3) of the nozzle tip (20, Figs. 1-4) and the threaded member (not explicitly shown, but jam nut 34 has threads within to threadably connect to the threads 29, Col. 2, Ln. 12-16) of the retaining nut (34, Figs. 2-3) correspondingly mate with each other and secure the retaining nut (34, Figs. 2-3) to the nozzle tip (20, Figs. 1-2, Col. 2, Ln. 12-16).
Nushart and Juttelstad are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pressure washer nozzle tip systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the nozzle tip and the retaining nut taught in Juttelstad’s system to Nushart’s system, to have a partially cone-shaped nozzle tip having an exterior surface and an interior surface and a hollow interior and having a distal end located at a tip of the cone-shape, the low pressure washer nozzle tip system comprising a retaining nut, and a threaded member on the nozzle tip and a threaded member on the retaining nut wherein the threaded member of the nozzle tip and the threaded member of the retaining nut correspondingly mate with each other and secure the retaining nut to the nozzle tip. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a partially cone-shaped nozzle tip having an exterior surface and an interior surface and a hollow interior and having a distal end located at a tip of the cone-shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions to modify the shape of the nozzle tip produce a predictable solution of having a partially cone-shaped nozzle tip having an exterior surface and an interior surface and a hollow interior and having a distal end located at a tip of the cone-shape, with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Doing so improves impact force of the spray and secures the parts together more snugly (Juttelstad, Col. 1, Ln. 36-37, Col. 2, Ln. 12-16).
However, Nushart and Juttelstad do not teach a distance creating a space located between an interior most wall of the distal end of the nozzle tip and either the first fluid exit opening or the second fluid exit opening wherein the space creates a fluid hollow dead zone within the hollow interior of the nozzle and wherein the dead hollow zone receives the fluid and is capable of forcing the fluid out of the first fluid exit opening and the second fluid exit opening in a consistent manner. Van Dijke teaches a low pressure washer nozzle tip system (3, Figs. 1-4) comprising a distance (annotated in Fig. 3) creating a space (annotated in Fig. 3) located between an interior most wall (annotated in Fig. 3) of the distal end (9, Fig. 3) of the nozzle tip (3, Fig. 3) and either the first fluid exit opening (18, Fig. 3) or the second fluid exit opening (18, Fig. 3) wherein the space creates a fluid hollow dead zone (interpreting as a zone where fluid does not flow, 17, impingement element 17 and annotated fluid hollow dead zone space in Fig. 3 are areas within the nozzle tip where the fluid does not flow through, annotated in Fig. 3) within the hollow interior of the nozzle (internal space of spray tip 3, shown in Fig. 3) and wherein the dead hollow zone (17, annotated in Fig. 3) receives the fluid and is capable of forcing the fluid out of the first fluid exit opening (18, Fig. 3) and the second fluid exit opening (18, Fig. 3) in a consistent manner (liquid is impinged by pressurized air and impingement surface 20 of impingement element 17, where the liquid is atomized, and discharge orifices 18 are arranged parallel to the impingement surface 20 to promote liquid to be discharged from the spray tip 3 through discharge orifices 18, and pressurized air permits smooth and stable flow, Pg. 3, Paragraph 3, Pg. 12, Paragraphs 2-3, 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nushart, Juttelstad, and Van Dijke are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pressure washer nozzle tip systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the nozzle tip and the retaining nut taught in Van Dijke’s system to Nushart’s system, as modified by Juttelstad, to have a distance creating a space located between an interior most wall of the distal end of the nozzle tip and either the first fluid exit opening or the second fluid exit opening wherein the space creates a fluid hollow dead zone within the hollow interior of the nozzle and wherein the dead hollow zone receives the fluid and is capable of forcing the fluid out of the first fluid exit opening and the second fluid exit opening in a consistent manner. Doing so provides a stable spray formation (Van Dijke, Pg. 2, Paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 5, Nushart, as modified by Juttelstad and Van Dijke, discloses the low pressure washer nozzle tip system of Claim 1 above. Nushart further discloses an extended rectangular rim (rim of flow body 92 downstream, shown in Fig. 3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) wherein the first fluid exit opening (144, Figs. 2-3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3) is located within the extended rectangular rim (rim of flow body 92 downstream, shown in Fig. 3) of the nozzle tip (92, Figs. 2-3).
In regards to claim 7, Nushart, as modified by Juttelstad and Van Dijke, discloses the low pressure washer nozzle tip system of Claim 1 above. Van Dijke further teaches the dead hollow zone (17, annotated in Fig. 3) has a length (length of entire impingement element 17, shown in Fig. 3) at least greater than a width of the first or second fluid exit opening (width of discharge orifices 18, shown in Fig. 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nushart et al. (US 20140263754 A1) in view of Juttelstad et al. (US Patent 4,193,550) and Van Dijke et al. (WO 2015036516 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karls (DE 102019107292 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Nushart, as modified by Juttelstad and Van Dijke, discloses the low pressure washer nozzle tip system of Claim 1 above. However, Nushart, Juttelstad, and Van Dijke do not teach the angle of the at least first fluid exit opening to the axis line is between one hundred and one hundred and five degrees. Karls teaches a pressure washer nozzle tip system (10, Figs. 1-2) comprising an angle of the fluid exit opening (18, 22, Fig. 2) to the axis line (28, Figs. 1-2) is between one hundred and one hundred and five degrees (the angle can be between 100 to 140 degrees, Paragraphs 0071, 0152).
Nushart, Juttelstad, Van Dijke, and Karls are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pressure washer nozzle tip systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the fluid exit opening taught in Karls’ system to Nushart’s system, as modified by Juttelstad and Van Dijke, to have the angle of the fluid exit opening to the axis line is between one hundred and one hundred and five degrees. Doing so provides an improved efficiency for the system (Karls, Paragraph 0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 23rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Nushart, as modified by Juttelstad and Van Dijke, does not disclose the amended limitations of independent claim 1, see Remarks, pg. 1-4, Nushart, as modified by Juttelstad and Van Dijke, does disclose these features. Specifically, Nushart does not disclose “a distance creating a space located between an interior most wall of the distal end of the nozzle tip and either the first fluid exit opening or the second fluid exit opening wherein the space creates a fluid dead zone within the hollow interior of the nozzle and wherein the dead zone is capable of forcing the fluid out of the first fluid exit opening and the second fluid exit opening in a consistent manner”. However, Van Dijke teaches these features as explained above in the rejection for claim 1. As shown in the annotated Fig. 3 of Van Dijke, Van Dijke teaches a distance (annotated in Fig. 3) creating a space (annotated in Fig. 3) located between an interior most wall (annotated in Fig. 3) of the distal end (9, Fig. 3) of the nozzle tip (3, Fig. 3) and either the first fluid exit opening (18, Fig. 3) or the second fluid exit opening (18, Fig. 3). The annotated distance is not referring to the wall as applicant states on pg. 3 of the Remarks, but rather the distance between the annotated interior most wall of the distal end of the nozzle tip and the opening of the discharge orifice 18. Additionally, Fig. 3 has been revised to include the hollow space within the impingement element 17. Van Dijke states that liquid is impinged by pressurized air and impingement surface 20 of impingement element 17, which is discharged from the spray tip through discharge orifices 18, and pressurized air permits smooth and stable flow (Pg. 3, Paragraph 3, Pg. 12, Paragraphs 2, 6), so liquid does flow through the annotated hollow space within the impingement element 17.
PNG
media_image1.png
718
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752