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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I (Figs. 1A-1D) in the reply filed on November 17, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7 and 9-13 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-XVI, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1- 6, 8, and 14-20 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.
The term “about” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “like” in claim 2 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2- 6, 8 and 14-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites that “the nozzle according to claim 1, comprising 2, 3, or 4 symmetrical parts.” The claim language is indefinite because it fails to specify which components of the nozzle are “symmetrical parts.” It is unclear whether the recited symmetry applies to the nozzle body, the fluid interaction regions, the feedback flow paths, or another structural element of the nozzle. Additionally, the claim does not specify the type or axis of symmetry (e.g., rotational symmetry, mirror symmetry, circumferential symmetry), not does it provide objective boundaries by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether a given nozzle meets the “symmetrical parts” limitation. As a result, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, rendering the claim indefinite. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMAC (WO 2021/145905 A1).
With regard to claim 1, TOMAC discloses a fluidic oscillator nozzle (1100, Fig. 11A), comprising a nozzle body comprising an exterior surface (Fig. 11A); an interior surface (Fig. 11B) defining a three-dimensional space therein; a fluid inlet (1150); and a fluid outlet (1160), wherein the three-dimensional space, the fluid inlet, and the fluid outlet are in flow communication (Fig. 11B), the three-dimensional space comprises a first fluid interaction region (1170) fluidly coupled to a first pair of feedback flow paths (1180/1190), and a second fluid interaction region (1170’) fluidly coupled to a second pair of feedback flow paths (1180’/1190’), the first and second fluid interaction regions intersect (Fig. 11C), the three-dimensional space comprises a fluid pathway from the fluid inlet (1150) to the fluid outlet (1160), the fluid pathway defined by the intersection of the first and second fluid interaction regions (1170/1170’).
TOMAC does not disclose that wherein a largest nozzle dimension is less than about 20.0 mm.
However, It is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any criticality associated to the dimension. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nozzle of TOMAC by having a largest nozzle dimension less than about 20.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the largest nozzle dimension, which achieves the recognized result of controlling fluid flow characteristics such as oscillation behavior and spray performance, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 2, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC further discloses that a cylinder-like or irregular cylinder-like shape (Fig. 11A), except having a length of from about 7.0 mm to about 15.0 mm and a largest diameter of from about 4.9 mm to about 12.0 mm.
However, It is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any criticality associated to the dimensions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nozzle of TOMAC by having a length of from about 7.0 mm to about 15.0 mm and a largest diameter of from about 4.9 mm to about 12.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a length of from about 7.0 mm to about 15.0 mm and a largest diameter of from about 4.9 mm to about 12.0 mm, which achieves the recognized result of controlling fluid flow characteristics such as oscillation behavior and spray performance, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 3, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC further discloses that the fluid pathway defined by the intersection is substantially cylinder-shaped (Fig. 11 B).
With regard to claim 4, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC does not disclose that a fluid interaction area comprises a largest diameter of from about 1.30 mm to about 3.40 mm and/or a smallest diameter of from about 0.60 mm to about 2.00 mm.
However, It is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any criticality associated to the dimensions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nozzle of TOMAC by having a largest diameter of from about 1.30 mm to about 3.40 mm and/or a smallest diameter of from about 0.60 mm to about 2.00 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a largest diameter of from about 1.30 mm to about 3.40 mm and/or a smallest diameter of from about 0.60 mm to about 2.00 mm, which achieves the recognized result of controlling fluid flow characteristics such as oscillation behavior and spray performance, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 5, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC does not disclose that a feedback flow path comprises a smallest diameter of from about 0.15 mm to about 0.41 mm.
However, It is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any criticality associated to the dimensions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nozzle of TOMAC by having a feedback flow path comprises a smallest diameter of from about 0.15 mm to about 0.41 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a feedback flow path comprises a smallest diameter of from about 0.15 mm to about 0.41 mm, which achieves the recognized result of controlling fluid flow characteristics such as oscillation behavior and spray performance, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 6, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC further discloses that 2, 3, or 4 symmetrical parts (Fig. 11A-11C).
With regard to claim 8, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC further discloses that each feedback flow path (1180/1190/1180’/1190’) is positioned about 90 degrees from an adjacent feedback flow path (Figs. 11A-11C).
Claims 14, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMAC as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Russell et al. (US 2018/0318855 A1).
With regard to claim 14, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC does not disclose an array of nozzles.
Russell teaches an array of fluidic oscillator nozzles (Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the nozzle of TOMAC in the array of nozzles as taught by Russell, for the purpose of using it on a shower head (Fig. 6B).
With regard to claims 18-20, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC does not disclose a plumbing fixture comprising one or more fluidic oscillator nozzles, wherein the plumbing fixture is a shower head, faucet spray head, or a whirlpool jet nozzle, wherein the plumbing fixture is a urinal sprayer, or a bidet or shower toilet nozzle.
Russell teaches a plumbing fixture comprising one or more fluidic oscillator nozzles, wherein the plumbing fixture is a shower head, faucet spray head, or a whirlpool jet nozzle, wherein the plumbing fixture is a urinal sprayer, or a bidet or shower toilet nozzle (the showerhead of Russell provides desired tactile sensations as they impact upon the skin of a user in para. [0015], that is acting as a shower toilet nozzle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a plurality of nozzles of TOMAC on the shower head as taught by Russell, for the purpose of providing desired tactile sensations as they impact upon the skin of a user in para. [0015].
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMAC as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas et al. (CN 109092592 A).
With regard to claims 15-16, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC does not disclose the nozzle prepared by micro-machining and 3D printing.
Thomas teaches an nozzle prepared by micro-machining and 3D printing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the nozzle of TOMAC in the array of nozzles as taught by Russell, for the purpose of using it on a shower head (Fig. 6B).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMAC as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coplin (US 2019/0255541 A1).
With regard to claim 17, the nozzle of TOMAC discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. TOMAC does not disclose the outlet comprises outwardly flared walls, and/or the fluid inlet ins inwardly tapered.
Coplin teaches a fluidic oscillator nozzle comprising an outlet (22, 25) and an inlet (18, 19), wherein the outlet comprises outwardly flared walls (Fig. 1-5), and/or the fluid inlet is inwardly tapered (Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of TOMAC, by forming the outlet with outwardly flared walls (Fig. 1-5), and the fluid inlet with inwardly tapered (Figs. 1-5) as taught by Coplin, for the purpose of generating a high pressure oscillating liquid discharge (Par. [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752