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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 11, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected with traverse Group I in the reply filed on August 18, 2025.
The requirement was still deemed proper and was therefore made FINAL in the Office action mailed on September 26, 2025.
Applicant elected with traverse Species A (figure 2) in the reply filed on August 18, 2025.
The requirement was still deemed proper and was therefore made FINAL in the Office action mailed on September 26, 2025.
Claims 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 18, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5 and 10-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the exit opening is configured such that at any given time during the creating at least one water jet pattern;” in lines 11-12. The phrase is grammatically incorrect. The thought of the phrase is incomplete. The phrase fails to state what the exit opening is configured to perform.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “water discharged by the nozzle assembly” in lines 1-2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “water discharged by the nozzle assembly” recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “is less than 50% of a total area” in lines 3-4. The “total area” appears to be a double inclusion of the “area” recited in line 2.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a portion of the edge” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “portion of the edge” recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one light source, which is arranged in the edge region of the exit opening, wherein the light source is arranged…” The recitation is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the arrangement" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a smallest open internal dimension" in lines 1-2. The claim fails to provide a reference to determine “smallest.” The claim does not require multiple open internal dimensions of the exit opening.
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. The above listing is only exemplary. Limited time for examination precludes a complete editorial review. Applicant is required to review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant should not misconstrue any lack of art rejection as an indication of allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 10-20 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 O 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights