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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed February 2, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 4 and 8-10 is also acknowledged. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-7, 11 and 12 remain pending and are addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 11 and 12 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to one or more nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Although the election was made “with traverse” in the reply filed July 15, 2025, as was stated in the Office action mailed November 3, 2025, the election must be treated as having been made without traverse, because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement (see again, MPEP § 818.01(a)). Also, regarding Applicant’s request for “reinstatement” of the withdrawn claims on pages 5-8 of the “Remarks/Arguments” portion of the reply filed February 2, 2026, the request must be denied, since Applicant’s failure to properly traverse the restriction requirement when the election was made results in the restriction requirement being made final.
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, 2 and 5-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, on line 2, the metes and bounds of the recitation, “having a special shape” cannot be determined. Essentially, the metes and bounds of the term “special” cannot be ascertained whereby the public can be put on notice as to what does or does not infringe on “special shape”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hruby, Jr., USPN 3,785,560.
As to claim 1, Hruby (see Figs. 1 and 2) shows a device (10) for controlling the shape of discharged liquid for forming a liquid column having a shape, comprising: a device body (11, 16) defining an internal fluid flow path, the device body comprising: a liquid inlet structure (in the region of 12) formed at an upstream end (12) of the device body; and a liquid outlet structure (in the region of 13) formed at a downstream end (13) of the device body; a passage (14, and optionally, an upstream-most portion of 22) defined by an inner wall surface of the device body and extending between the liquid inlet structure and the liquid outlet structure (see again, Fig. 1), allowing liquid to flow therein; a liquid outlet port (21, and the terminal ends of 23) formed in the liquid outlet structure, the liquid outlet port having a rotationally symmetric cross-sectional geometry (see Fig. 2); a liquid inlet port (at 12) formed in the liquid inlet structure, the liquid inlet port being disposed at an upstream end of the passage (see again, Fig. 1); a liquid outlet channel (20, and channel portions defined by 23, which can optionally include some or all of 22) disposed between the liquid outlet port and a downstream end of the passage (at 17, or at the beginning portions of 23) and being in fluid communication with the passage, and cross-sections of different positions of the liquid outlet channel in a liquid outlet direction have a rotationally symmetric shape corresponding to the shape of the liquid outlet port (see again, Figs. 1 and 2); an area of the liquid outlet port is smaller than areas of the cross-sections of the liquid outlet channel (see Fig. 1; and see column 3, line 68, through column 4, line 2); a guide section (24 and/or 25) is disposed on an inner wall of the liquid outlet channel and is in fluid communication with the liquid outlet port, and an area of a cross-section of the guide section decreases gradually in the liquid outlet direction (see again, Fig. 1), thereby limiting the flow direction of liquid to enable the liquid to flow smoothly (absent evidence provided in the prior art to the contrary, this function would be met by the applied prior art structure meeting the recited structural limitations providing the function); and cross-sections of different positions of the passage (within 14) in the liquid outlet direction are in a same shape and are of a rotationally symmetric structure, and areas of the cross-sections in the passage are equal (see again, Fig. 1), thereby limiting liquid flowing in a disordered manner (absent evidence provided in the prior art to the contrary, this function would be met by the applied prior art structure meeting the recited structural limitations providing the function), and after the disordered liquid flows through the passage by a certain length, the flow direction of the liquid tends to be stable (absent evidence provided in the prior art to the contrary, this function would be met by the applied prior art structure meeting the recited structural limitations providing the function). As to the remaining recitation, “; and/or, guide ribs are disposed in the passage and are perpendicular to the liquid outlet direction, thereby limiting the flow direction of the liquid and retarding the liquid flow to maintain a uniform liquid flow direction; and/or, a filter device for reducing a pressure of liquid and slowing down the liquid is disposed at an end, close to the liquid outlet channel, in the passage”, at the very least, this recitation does not provide any additional claim scope limitations, since they are recited in an alternative manner and are thus not required by the claim.
As to claim 2, Hruby shows the device according to claim 1, and wherein the liquid outlet port is in an axially symmetric shape (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 5, Hruby shows the device according to claim 1, wherein a slow-down section (some or all of 22) is disposed in the passage (when the portion of 22, from 17 up to, at most, the beginning of each 23, is applied as part of the “passage”) or the liquid outlet channel (when all of 22 is applied as part of the “liquid outlet channel”), an area of a cross-section of the slow-down section decreases gradually in the liquid outlet direction (see Fig. 1), and a change rate of the area of the cross-section of the slow-down section decreases gradually in the liquid outlet direction (see again, Fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Hruby shows the device according to claim 5, wherein at least one said slow-down section is disposed in the liquid outlet channel (see explanation regarding claim 5, above).
As to claim 7, Hruby shows the device according to claim 5, wherein at least one said slow-down section is disposed in the passage (see explanation regarding claim 5, above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-23 of the “Remarks/Arguments” portion of the response filed February 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In section “I” of the aforementioned arguments, Applicant first essentially asserts that the device of Hruby, as applied in the Office action mailed November 3, 2025, and as applied above in the instant Office action, cannot meet the instant application claims because “the water supply in Hruby contains solid matter, which prevents the formation of a special-shaped liquid column”. First, the term “special-shaped liquid column” has no meaning in a patentable sense, as essentially stated above in paragraph 5 of the instant Office action. Also, the notion that “solid matter” may be found in the water supply when using the device of Hruby is completely irrelevant. As set forth above, the limitations of the claims are met by what is shown in the prior art to Hruby. In other words, just because Hruby states that the device is capable of producing the desired liquid discharge even when solid matter exists in the water supply does not mean that the device of Hruby is precluded from meeting the claim limitations.
Applicant then asserts that Hruby “discharges water vertically upward and therefore cannot form a special-shaped liquid column”. It is again this Office’s position that the term “special-shaped liquid column” has no meaning in a patentable sense. Also, as previously stated, the limitations of the claims are met by what is shown in the prior art to Hruby. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that the device of Hruby, as applied to the claims, cannot form a liquid column having a particular, desired shape, even if the device discharges water in a vertically upward manner.
Applicant further asserts that the liquid flow parameters in Hruby “confirm that Hruby cannot form a special-shaped liquid column”. It is again this Office’s position that the term “special-shaped liquid column” has no meaning in a patentable sense. Also, as previously stated, the limitations of the claims are met by what is shown in the prior art to Hruby. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that the device of Hruby, as applied to the claims, cannot form a liquid column having a particular, desired shape, regardless of flow parameters expressed or implied by Hruby.
Applicant then asserts that “Hruby’s application environment further confirms that it cannot form a special-shaped liquid column”. It is again this Office’s position that the term “special-shaped liquid column” has no meaning in a patentable sense. Also, as previously stated, the limitations of the claims are met by what is shown in the prior art to Hruby. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that the device of Hruby, as applied to the claims, cannot form a liquid column having a particular, desired shape, regardless of any application environment where the device of Hruby is intended to be used.
In section “II” of the aforementioned arguments, Applicant essentially asserts that the device of Hruby cannot meet amended claim 1 of the instant application, because Applicant contends that “Hruby does not disclose any passage configuration capable of limiting liquid flowing in a disordered manner, and after the disordered liquid flows through the passage by a certain length, the flow direction of the liquid tends to be stable”. This Office does not agree. First, as set forth above in paragraph 7 of the instant Office action, this argument is with respect to a functional recitation which is recited merely as a resulting function of the recited structural limitations regarding, “cross-sections of different positions of the passage in the liquid outlet direction are in a same shape and are of a rotationally symmetric structure, and areas of the cross-sections in the passage are equal” of amended claim 1. Thus, as stated in paragraph 7 of the instant Office action, since the recited structural limitations are clearly met by Hruby, absent any evidence provided in Hruby to the contrary, this function would be met by the applied prior art structure meeting the recited structural limitations providing the function.
The remaining portions of the arguments in section “II” pertain to alternative language recitations of claim 1. Thus, as stated above in paragraph 7 of the instant Office action, since these recitations are not required by the claim, Applicant’s arguments as to claim 1 being distinguished from the prior art to Hruby due to a purported absence of such features, is irrelevant, as the arguments are not commensurate with the presented claim scope.
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 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 DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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 (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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752