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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and Remarks" filed on 01/14/25.
Specification
The amendment filed 10/14/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“The outer diameter of a needle valve can be positioned according to the holes and edges designed in the central body 20.”
“The connection between the central axis 170 and the central body 20 can enable both accurate steering of the central axis to dispense the materials at any of 360 degrees of rotation and enable desired contact pressure between the sealing surfaces at the connection between the central axis 170 and the central body 20.”
“The outer diameter of the axis 170 can be rotatable relative to the inner diameter of the central body 20.”
“To make the surfaces at the connection between the central axis 170 and the central body 20 close to each other and seal properly, a locking ring can be used on top of the connection between the central axis 170 and the central body 20, whereby the locking ring serves multiple functions.”
“Tracks 90 in the bottom the connection housing 40 enable can be configured to make a protection covert 150 fit properly to the connection housing 40”.
“Needle valves may be configured to distribute air […] via opening and closing needles of the needle valves”.
“The needle valve can be integrated with an air distribution block”.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “material” should be “materials”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/14/25. These drawings are unacceptable because they contain new matter in at least the below circled areas. Therefore, the drawings are not entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
554
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
302
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
540
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
513
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
463
689
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
490
696
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The drawings filed 05/17/23 are objected to:
as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 125
because Fig. 2 is unclear in at least the following locations:
the structure located at the end of the leader for reference numeral 90
the structure located at the end of the leader for reference numeral 80
because the structure depicted in Fig. 3 cannot be clearly ascertained.
because the structure and reference numerals depicted in Fig. 4 cannot be clearly ascertained.
because the structure depicted in Fig. 6 cannot be clearly ascertained.
because the structure and reference numerals depicted in Fig. 7 cannot be clearly ascertained.
under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because:
the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“air-controlled pistons” (claim 3)
“swivel chamber channels are segregated by a plurality of swivel chamber sealing rings” (claim 7)
they fail to show the following as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
“the swiveling chamber comprises tracks configured to fit with o-rings inside the swiveling chamber” (pg. 2, ln. 16-17). There appears no clear depiction of the nature of the disclosed “fit” between the tracks 90 and o-rings 100 according to the aforementioned disclosure.
“the needle” (pg. 3, ln. 20)
“the locking ring” (pg. 3, ln. 25)
“U-manchette” (pg. 4, Ln. 17)
“The hoses” (pg. 4, Ln. 21)
“The connection housing can be configured to transport the material coming from the hoses [..]” (pg. 4, ln. 21-22)
“an air distribution block” (pg. 4, Ln. 33-34)
under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) because:
the plane upon which each sectional view is taken, is not indicated on the view from which the section is cut;
all sectional views omit required hatching;
under 37 CFR 1.84(l) because the lines have inconsistent weight, darkness, and thickness. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference characters "60" and "70" have both been used to designate a conduit in Figure 5.
reference character “60” has been used to designate both a conduit and hole receiving a conduit, in Figure 5.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 16-17, there appears no support in the application as originally filed for the following: “a swivel chamber coupled to the central body such that the central body is able to rotate about its longitudinal axis and rotate relative to the swiveling chamber”.
As per claim 16, there appears no support in the application as originally filed for the following: “the axis is configured to dispense the material from the nozzle via the at least one channel at any of 360 degrees of rotation of the central body and nozzle relative to the swivel chamber and connection housing connected thereto”.
As per claim 17, there appears no support in the application as originally filed for the following: “the axis is configured to dispense the material from the nozzle via the at least one channel at any rotational angle of the central body and nozzle relative to the swivel chamber and connection housing connected thereto”.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the above noted factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404.
As per claim 1, the claim requires inter alia “a swiveling chamber compris[ing] an axis configured to receive multiple materials, and wherein the axis is configured to dispense the material at any of 360 degrees of rotation”. At least because of the aforementioned numerous ambiguities identified in both the specification and drawings, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “the axis is configured to dispense the material at any of 360 degrees of rotation”.
As per claim 2, the claim requires inter alia “the central body is configured to extrude the materials into a nozzle head”. At least because of the aforementioned numerous ambiguities identified in both the specification and drawings, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “the central body is configured to extrude the materials into a nozzle head”.
As per claim 3, the claim requires inter alia “air-controlled pistons”. At least because of the aforementioned numerous ambiguities identified in both the specification and drawings, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “air-controlled pistons”.
As per claim 4, the claim requires inter alia “one channel is a return channel configured to receive a second material”. At least because of the aforementioned numerous ambiguities identified in both the specification and drawings, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “one channel is a return channel configured to receive a second material”.
As per claim 10, the claim requires inter alia “the swivel chamber is configured to comprise seal rings to circulate materials within the central body”. At least because of the aforementioned numerous ambiguities identified in both the specification and drawings, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “the swivel chamber is configured to comprise seal rings to circulate materials within the central body”.
As per claim 11, the claim requires inter alia “the connection housing is configured to transport the materials to the swivel chamber”. At least because of the aforementioned numerous ambiguities identified in both the specification and drawings, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “the connection housing is configured to transport the materials to the swivel chamber”.
As per claim 12, the claim requires inter alia “the connection housing comprises a leakage chamber configured to receive any leakage of components from the swivel chamber”. At least because of the aforementioned numerous ambiguities identified in both the specification and drawings, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “the connection housing comprises a leakage chamber configured to receive any leakage of components from the swivel chamber”.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 3-4 depend from claim 2 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and thus inherits the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and thus inherits the deficiencies thereof.
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 1-17 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.
As per claims 1-17, the scope of the claims is uncertain at least because of the aforementioned rejections under 35 USC 112(a). This uncertainty renders the scope indefinite.
In view of the numerous informalities and indefiniteness issues noted above, although a search of the prior art has been conducted, no meaningful application of prior art against the claims can be made at this time. This should not be taken as an indication that the claims would be allowable if all of the noted issues are corrected". “[W]here there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Response to Arguments
In regards to the objections to the specification issued in the office action dated 04/14/25, the amendment filed 10/14/25 overcomes those rejections. However, the amendment filed 10/14/25 necessitates the new objections to the specification contained in this office action.
In regards to the objections to the drawings issued in the office action dated 04/14/25, the remarks filed 10/14/25 have been fully considered by are not found persuasive. The drawings filed 04/14/25 are found to contain new matter and therefore are not entered. The drawings filed 05/17/23 remain rejected. Furthermore, those new drawings objections contained in this office action are necessitated by the amendment to the specification filed 10/14/25.
In regards to the claim rejections under 112(a), the remarks filed 10/14/25 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection by providing the following arguments:
As per claim 1, the specification beginning at page 3 has been amended to address the swiveling chamber may dispense the material at any of 360 degrees of rotation about the arrow 8.
As per claim 2, in regards to the limitation “wherein the central body is configured to extrude the materials into a nozzle head”, the nozzle head 50 is shown in Fig 1-3 and receives material from channels 60. A POSITA would understand make and or use the claimed invention to extrude material from channels 60 into nozzle head 50.
As per claim 3, Figure 4 shows a piston 70 within a piston assembly 160. As such, a POSITA would understand how to make and use the claimed invention.
As per claim 4, Figures 2 and 5 and the paragraphs beginning on page 2, line 5 and on page 3, line 7 have been amended to reference return channel 65. As such a POSITA would understand how to make and use the claimed invention.
As per claim 10, the paragraph beginning at page 2, line 5 and Figure 4 has been amended to disclose and show swivel chamber 125. As such a POSITA would understand how to make and use the claimed invention.
As per claim 11, the claim has been amended to remove recitation of “hoses”.
As per claim 12, Figures 1 and 4 disclose a leakage chamber 13 which is also described in detail in the specification. As such, a POSITA would understand how to make and use the claimed invention.
In response to (A), arrow 8 appears only in the drawing amendment filed 10/14/25—not entered because of new matter. Arrow 8 does not appear in the drawings filed 05/17/23. Because of this and because of the other aforementioned numerous ambiguities and clarity and new matter issues identified in both the specification and drawings, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “the axis is configured to dispense the material at any of 360 degrees of rotation”.
In response to (B), it is unclear how extrusion of material is effected, by the central body, into a nozzle head – as required by the claimed. Figures 1-3 of the drawings filed 05/17/23 do not explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would make and or use the claimed invention. Moreover, in determining the relative weight to accord to rebuttal evidence, considerations such as whether a nexus exists between the claimed invention and the proffered evidence, and whether the evidence is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, are appropriate. The mere presence of some credible rebuttal evidence does not dictate that an obviousness rejection must always be withdrawn. See MPEP § 2145. Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a nozzle receiving material from channels) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to (C), the structure of Fig. 4 is entirely unclear—e.g. any bounds of piston 70 and any relationship between piston 70 and the piston assembly 160 are unclear from Fig. 4 of the drawings filed 05/17/23. It is therefore unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and use the claimed invention such that “the central body is configured to extrude the materials into a nozzle head”. Moreover, in determining the relative weight to accord to rebuttal evidence, considerations such as whether a nexus exists between the claimed invention and the proffered evidence, and whether the evidence is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, are appropriate. The mere presence of some credible rebuttal evidence does not dictate that an obviousness rejection must always be withdrawn. See MPEP § 2145. Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., piston within a piston assembly) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to (D), the meaning of “return channel” is unclear. Figures 2 and 5 and the specification do not provide clarity on what a “return channel” is and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed could not make and or use an invention commensurate with an ambiguous scope.
In response to (E), the structure of Fig. 4 in the drawings filed 05/17/23 is entirely unclear—e.g. there appears no swivel chamber or seal rings. It is therefore unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and use the claimed invention such that “the swivel chamber is configured to comprise seal rings to circulate materials within the central body”.
In response to (F), at least because of the aforementioned numerous ambiguities identified in the specification and drawings and claims, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “the connection housing is configured to transport the materials to the swivel chamber”.
In response to (G), the drawings filed 10/14/25 contain new matter and are not entered. There appears no leakage chamber in the drawings filed 05/17/23. At least because of the aforementioned numerous ambiguities identified in the specification and drawings and claims, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and or use the claim invention such that “the connection housing comprises a leakage chamber configured to receive any leakage of components from the swivel chamber”.
In regards to the claim rejections under 112(b), the remarks filed 10/14/25 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection by arguing that all objections and rejections have been addressed and there are no outstanding objections nor rejections. In response, the drawings filed 10/14/25 contain new matter and are therefore not entered. All drawings objections issued in the non-final rejection dated 04/14/25 are maintained. Furthermore, the amendment to the specification filed 10/14/25 contains new matter which is required to be cancelled. The claim rejections under 112(b) are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 with expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 January 12, 2026