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 .
FINAL ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/15/2025 has been received and claims 1-11 and 14-15 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/16/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-11 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 4 of Claim 8, insert --circular-- before “sidewall” and “bottom”;
in line 6 of Claim 8, insert --circular—before both instances of “sidewall”;
in line 7 of Claim 8, insert --circular-- before “bottom”;
in line 11 of Claim 8, insert --circular-- before both instances of “sidewall” as well as “top”;
in line 12 of Claim 8, insert --circular-- before “top” and “sidewall”;
in line 13 of Claim 8, insert --plurality of water-- before “spray”;
in line 15 of Claim 8, insert --water spray-- before “slit”;
in line 16 of Claim 8, insert --circular-- before “sidewall”;
in line 17 of Claim 8, insert --circular-- before “bottom”;
in line 5 of Claim 9, insert --circular-- between “second” and “sidewall”;
in line 6 of Claim 9, insert --circular-- between “second” and “bottom”;
in line 9 of Claim 9, insert --circular-- between “second” and “sidewall”;
in line 10 of Claim 9, insert --circular-- between “second” and “sidewall”;
in line 2 of Claim 11,
insert --circular-- before “sidewall”,
insert --circular-- between “second” and “sidewall”;
in line 1 of Claim 14, insert --circular-- before “sidewall”;
in line 3 of Claim 14, insert --circular-- before “bottom”;
in line 5 of Claim 14, insert --circular-- before “bottom”;
in line 6 of Claim 14, insert --plurality of-- before “water spray slits”;
in line 3 of Claim 15, insert --circular-- before “bottom” and “sidewall”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “water receiving member” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the slit" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is not clear to which one of “the plurality of water spray slits” the limitation is attempting to point to.
In Claim 9, it is not clear to which sidewall (i.e. circular sidewall as set forth in claim 8 or the first circular sidewall”) the limitation “the sidewall” in line 3 is attempting to point to.
In Claim 9, it is not clear to which bottom (i.e. circular bottom as set forth in claim 8 or the first circular bottom”) the limitations “the bottom” in lines 3 and 4 are attempting to point to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the inclined wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 14, it is not clear whether “a circular top of the vertical extension wall” is attempting to point to the circular top as set forth in the parent claim 14 or to a separate and different circular top that the circular top as set forth in the parent claim 14.
Claims 10-11 and 15 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is due to inclusion of limitation “a plurality of water spray slits extend radially, and are defined in a circular top of the [circular] sidewall, and are arranged along the circular top of the [circular] sidewall” “wherein each of the water spray slits is tapered such that a width thereof decreases as the slit extends radially outwardly, and wherein the [circular] sidewall extends upwardly in an inclined manner at an obtuse angle relative to the [circular] bottom”. While prior art of Kim (KR20170001073U) discloses a spray nozzle as discussed in pp. 2-3 of Office Action mailed 7/01/2025, Kim (‘073U) does not specifically teach that the plurality of water spray slits are defined “in a circular top of the [circular] sidewall, and are arranged along the circular top of the [circular] sidewall” “wherein each of the water spray slits is tapered such that a width thereof decreases as the slit extends radially outwardly, and wherein the [circular] sidewall extends upwardly in an inclined manner at an obtuse angle relative to the [circular] bottom”. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a spray nozzle comprised of components in the configuration as set forth in the claims, particularly “a plurality of water spray slits extend radially, and are defined in a circular top of the [circular] sidewall, and are arranged along the circular top of the [circular] sidewall” “wherein each of the water spray slits is tapered such that a width thereof decreases as the slit extends radially outwardly, and wherein the [circular] sidewall extends upwardly in an inclined manner at an obtuse angle relative to the [circular] bottom”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9-11 of Remarks, filed 9/15/2025, with respect to claims 8 in view of KR20170001073U have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights