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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mouth in claim 6 and the laser printing in claim 9 must be shown or the feature s canceled from the claim s . Regarding the mouth , it is noted that if the mouth is meant to be the equivalent to the orifice 14, then the same terminology should be used to avoid confusion . No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to for the following informalities. Figs. 2-3 include reference numeral 2, however refence numeral 2 is identified as the pumping device on the last page of the specification. The areas labeled as 2 in Figs. 2-3 do not appear to correspond to the pumping device. The drawings are also objected to as failing to adequately use solid black lines. 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) requires black ink to secure solid black lines and 37 CFR 1.84(l) states that every line must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to clearly show the ledge 8 , deflector 15 , lock 9, and scalloping 11 as described in the specification. A lthough reference numeral s 8 , 15, 9, and 11 are shown in at least Fig s . 4 , 7, 2, and 6, respectively, the poor quality and small size of the drawings does not allow the ledge , deflector , lock, and scalloping to be properly understood and/or identified . Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. Arrangement of the Specification As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading: (a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION. (b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS. (c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT. (d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. (e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. (f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. (g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. (1) Field of the Invention. (2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. (h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. ( i ) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S). (j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION. (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet). (l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet). (m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, it is unclear if the term “Mini-invasive” is correct or if “Minimally invasive” was intended; also, terms such as “especially” in a title are not commonly used. It is noted that if the title is changed, the corresponding language in the claims should reflect the change to the title. A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter. The specification appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors Claim Interpretation Regarding claim 1, it is noted that claim 1 includes the transition phrase “consisting of” which excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (MPEP § 2111.03 II). Therefore, limitations which are not part of the body and the respective nozzle defined in claim 1, such as the lock in claim 2, the filter in claim 4, and the deflector in claim 6, are technically excluded by virtue of the chosen transition phrase. For examination purposes, the limitations of the lock, the filter, and the deflector will be interpreted as not being positively recited and the limitations will be met if the prior art is capable of use with such limitations. Regarding c laim s 2 , 3, and 8 , it is noted that claim s 2 , 3, and 8 include product-by-process limitation s . The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, the lock in claim 2 , the ledge in claim 3, and the print in claim 8 are not dependent on their methods of formation such as welding , being provided before attachment to the nozzle , or laser etching, respectively. Claim Objections Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 1-9 in general, t he use of similar terms such as the mini-invasive surgical nozzle, the body of the nozzle, the respective nozzle, and the nozzle cause unnecessary ambiguity when interpreting the claims. Examiner suggests using alternative terms for these nozzle variations. Examiner notes that if the reference numerals 6 and 7 were not used, all the claims would be indefinite because it would be unclear which nozzle is being referred to in each situation. Claims 6 and 7 recite “its mouth” and “the outlet diameter,” respectively. In claim 6, the term “its mouth” should be changed to “a mouth of the nozzle” and in claim 7, the term “the outlet diameter” should be changed to “an outlet diameter.” Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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. All the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, in claim 1, phrases such as “especially” and “ characterized in that” are not ordinarily used in U.S. practice. Regarding the term “especially” in particular, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be clearly determined since is unclear whether the nozzle is intended to be used for mini-invasive surgery or not ; and it is unclear if these purposes are intended to affect the structure of the nozzle. Regarding the term “characterized in that,” the term “characterized in that,” which is a more open-type of transition phrase, appears to conflict with the term “consisting of,” which is specifically a closed-type of transition phrase. Clarification is required. Additionally, phrases such as “the nozzle (6) is at one end of the body (7) of the mini-invasive surgical nozzle firmly attache d ” (emphasis added) is an example of an idiomatic error. Applicant is suggested to review all the claims and to make sure all the claims conform to U.S. practice and are free from idiomatic errors. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0107620 to Fech et al. (“ Fech ”). Regarding claim 1 , Fech teaches a mini-invasive surgical nozzle, especially for mini- invasive surgery purposes, consisting of a body ( 60 ) of the nozzle with two ends (opposite ends of 60) and the respective nozzle ( 20 ), characterized in that the nozzle ( 20 ) is at one end of the body ( Fig. 3 ) of the mini-invasive surgical nozzle firmly attached, wherein the outer diameter of the body of the respective nozzle and the outer diameter of the respective nozzle are identical ([0071 ] ). Regarding claim 5 , Fech teaches t he mini-invasive surgical nozzle, especially for mini-invasive surgery purposes, according to claim 1 as shown above , characterized in that the nozzle is provided with a vortex chamber (11). Regarding claim 6 , Fech teaches t he mini-invasive surgical nozzle, especially for mini-invasive surgery purposes, according to claim 1 as shown above , characterized in that the nozzle is capable of (see claim interpretation) being provided with a deflector ( such as deflection surface 41 ) on its mouth. Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,729,334 to Baran Regarding claim 1 , Baran teaches a mini-invasive surgical nozzle (Fig. 14) , especially for mini-invasive surgery purposes, consisting of a body ( 152 ) of the nozzle with two ends ( opposite ends of 152 ) and the respective nozzle ( 156 ), characterized in that the nozzle is at one end of the body of the mini-invasive surgical nozzle firmly attached (Fig. 14) , wherein the outer diameter of the body of the respective nozzle and the outer diameter of the respective nozzle are identical ( outer diameters are identical where 152 and 156 are connected ). Regarding claim 2 , Baran teaches t he mini-invasive surgical nozzle, especially for mini-invasive surgery purposes, according to claim 1 as shown above , Baran further teaching that a is capable of being attache d welded (see claim interpretation) to the second end of the body of the mini-invasive surgical nozzle for connection of a pressure line with a pharmaceutical (although not positively recited, Baran also teaches a lock 24, as better seen in the generic embodiment of Fig. 1). Regarding claim 4 , Baran teaches t he mini-invasive surgical nozzle, especially for mini-invasive surgery purposes, according to claim 1 as shown above , Baran further teaching a filter is capable of being (see claim interpretation) mounted in the nozzle (the nozzle 152 of Baran is capable of having a filter mounted therein given the broadest reasonable interpretation since the filter is excluded by the transition phrase of claim 1, an example of a filter is also cited in the supplemental prior art that is cited but not relied upon for the instant rejection). 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 . 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. Claim s 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fech alone . Regarding claim 3 , Fech teaches t he mini-invasive surgical nozzle, especially for mini-invasive surgery purposes, according to claim 1 as shown above , characterized in that before attaching the nozzle (see claim interpretation above) the body of the mini-invasive surgical nozzle is provided with a ledge ( 61 ) , but does not mention the length of the ledge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the ledge of Fech to have a length of 3-10 mm , since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instant case, the ledge of Fech would not operate differently with the claimed 3-10 mm length , as this length would be suitable for receiving the mating nozzle plate which may vary in size according the particular treatment and area of therapy. Regarding claim 7 , Fech teaches t he mini-invasive surgical nozzle, especially for mini-invasive surgery purposes, according to claim 1 as shown above but does not mention the diameter of the nozzle outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the diameter of the nozzle outlet of Fech to have a range of 0.05-1.5 mm , since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instant case, the diameter of the nozzle outlet of Fech would not operate differently with the claimed 0.05-1.5 mm range , as this range would be suitable for providing sufficient fluid output according the particular treatment and area of therapy. Claim s 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0220620 to McMurdo. Regarding claim 8 , Baran teaches t he mini-invasive surgical nozzle, especially for mini- invasive surgery purposes, according to claim 1 as shown above , but does not teach the printing. McMurdo teaches an outer surface of a body of a mini-invasive surgical nozzle is provided with a laser (see claim interpretation) print ( [0081], lettering ) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baran to include print as taught by McMurdo to yield the predictable result of providing a means of identification or directions or user benefit and convenience . Regarding claim 9 , Baran teaches t he mini-invasive surgical nozzle, especially for mini-invasive surgery purposes, according to claim 1 as shown above , but does not teach scalloping. McMurdo teaches a part of the body of a mini-invasive surgical nozzle is provided with scalloping ( [0081], ridges or textured gripping surfaces ) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baran to include scalloping as taught by McMurdo to yield the predictable result of providing a means of gripping the nozzle. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 120,525 to Mattison which teaches a lock ( i ) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0143915 to Strange et al. (“Strange”) which teaches a filter ([0016]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BENJAMIN KOO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1749 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am-5pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Tsai can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5246 . 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. /B.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /MICHAEL J TSAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783