3DETAILED 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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its word count is over the maximum word count of 150 (abstract is currently 222 words) and is further objected to for including legal phraseology (i.e. “the present applicant discloses” in line 1, “the present application” in lines 8-9). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 “convex parts” (claim 3) and “straight hole” (claim 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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 1-7 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, the term “the through hole” in line 8 is unclear as to which “through hole” is being referred to here (multiple “through holes” have been claimed already).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the upper side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the outer ends" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the outer end of a straight hole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the position of the nozzle" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, the phrase “inclined to the position of the nozzle” in line 4 is unclear as the hole is part of the nozzle, thus it is not clear how the hole can be inclined to the position of the nozzle if it itself is part of the nozzle, and thus the position would be the same for both.
Regarding claim 6, the term “size” is unclear which dimension applicant is intending to claim (i.e. length, width, height, etc).
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the straight hole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2021/0161629) in view of Ou (US 2021/0323009).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses (Fig. 1-2) an oral irrigator nozzle (Abstract), comprising
a nozzle (top portion of base 1 having opening 11) and a connector (bottom portion of base 1 that connects to water source/handle) at a lower end of the nozzle, wherein an upper end of the nozzle is connected with a second nozzle (spray head 3, via bending part 22) which is provided with
a shell (housing portion of spray head 3 defining chamber within) and an inner cavity (chamber formed within housing of spray head 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang does not disclose the second nozzle is a mixed-flow nozzle wherein the inner cavity of the mixed-flow nozzle is provided with a conical through hole along the water flow direction a conical head of the conical through hole is connected with an inverted conical through hole; a throat cavity is formed at the junction of the conical through hole and the inverted conical through hole; the throat cavity is provided with a through hole which runs through the throat cavity, and an end of the through hole is provided with an external counterbore.
However, Ou teaches (Fig. 1) a mixed-flow nozzle (shown in Fig. 1) wherein the inner cavity of the mixed-flow nozzle is provided with a conical through hole (see conical, due to tapering, through hole in Annotated Fig. 1 below) along the water flow direction, a conical head of the conical through hole (top of the conical through hole that is conical shaped due to tapering) is connected with an inverted conical through hole (see inverted conical, due to tapering, through hole in Annotated Fig. 1); a throat cavity is formed at the junction of the conical through hole and the inverted conical through hole (see cavity formed at junction of the conical and inverted conical through holes in Annotated Fig. 1); the throat cavity is provided with a through hole which runs through the throat cavity (see through hole running through cavity in Annotated Fig. 1), and an end of the through hole is provided with an external counterbore (see external counterbore, connected to external air, in Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
666
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 second nozzle of Huang to include a mixed-flow nozzle wherein the inner cavity of the mixed-flow nozzle is provided with a conical through hole along the water flow direction a conical head of the conical through hole is connected with an inverted conical through hole; a throat cavity is formed at the junction of the conical through hole and the inverted conical through hole; the throat cavity is provided with a through hole which runs through the throat cavity, and an end of the through hole is provided with an external counterbore, as taught by Ou, for the purpose of improving spraying effect of the liquid by incorporating air into the mixture, thus improving therapeutic outcome.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, modified Huang discloses a throat cavity (throat cavity in Annotated Fig. 1 Ou) and a straight hole (horizontal hole of through hole that directly connected to liquid chamber, see Annotated Fig. 1 of Ou), but does not disclose the size of the throat cavity is 0.5mm-0.65mm, and the size of the straight hole is 0.3-0.4mm. However, absent evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try to make the size of the throat cavity is 0.5mm-0.65mm, and the size of the straight hole is 0.3-0.4mm for the purpose of providing channeling of the fluids into a combined flow and improved mixing so that a well-mixed gas-liquid mixture is achieved, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, modified Huang discloses an inverted conical through hole (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Ou) having a length and a water outlet (outlet of spray head 3 shown in Fig. 2 of Huang) of the mixed-flow nozzle having a diameter, but does not disclose wherein the length of the inverted conical through hole is 1.5mm to 4mm, and the diameter of a water outlet of the mixed-flow nozzle is 0.8mm to 1.3mm. However, absent evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try to make the length of the inverted conical through hole is 1.5mm to 4mm, and the diameter of a water outlet of the mixed-flow nozzle is 0.8mm to 1.3mm for the purpose of providing channeling of the fluids into a combined flow and improved mixing so that a well-mixed gas-liquid mixture is achieved, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2021/0161629) in view of Ou (US 2021/0323009), and further in view of Bailey (US 5,129,583).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, modified Huang discloses wherein the surface of the mixed-flow nozzle (interpreted as the top surface) is sheathed with a silica gel sleeve (gel sleeve 2 of Huang, made of silica gel as disclosed in paragraph [0023]), and two ends of the silica gel sleeve are penetrated with through holes (see through holes passing through top and bottom ends of sleeve 2 in Fig. 3 Huang); the upper side of the silica gel sleeve is higher than the surface of the mixed-flow nozzle (Fig. 2 shows the top surface of the sleeve 2 is higher than top surface of nozzle 3, due to the nozzle being sheathed within sleeve 2).
Huang appears to discloses a cavity is formed between the upper side of the silica gel sleeve and the surface of the mixed-flow nozzle (cavity is formed between top surface of the sleeve 2 and top surface of nozzle 3 of Huang due to tapering top surface of nozzle 3), but in the event that this feature is not disclosed Bailey teaches (Fig. 1) a nozzle (nozzle portion having cavity 24) sheathed within a sheath (formed by portions 10 and 14) wherein a cavity is formed between the upper side of the sleeve and the surface of the mixed-flow nozzle (see cavity formed between top surface of sleeve 10,14 and tapered region of top surface of nozzle portion in Annotated Fig. 1 of Bailey below).
PNG
media_image3.png
468
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 invention of modified Huang to include a cavity formed between the upper side of the sleeve and the surface of the mixed-flow nozzle, as taught by Bailey, for the purpose of reducing manufacturing cost by not requiring the tapered portion of the mixed nozzle to be completely covered by silica gel when assembled.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, modified Huang discloses one of two ends of the mixed-flow nozzle is provided with a convex part (see convex tapered top portion at top surface of nozzle 3 of Huang), the convex part extending to an outer end via a through hole (see through hole passing through top surface in Fig. 3 Huang), but does not disclose wherein the two ends of the mixed-flow nozzle are respectively provided with convex parts, and the convex parts extend to the outer ends via through holes.
However, Bailey teaches (Fig. 1) the two ends of the mixed-flow nozzle are respectively provided with convex parts (see convex parts at top and bottom ends in Annotated Fig. 1 of Bailey below), and the convex parts extend to the outer ends via through holes (convex parts extend to bottom and top ends via holes passing through the convex parts as shown in Annotated Fig. 1 of Bailey).
PNG
media_image3.png
468
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 invention of modified Huang such that the two ends of the mixed-flow nozzle are respectively provided with convex parts, and the convex parts extend to the outer ends via through holes., as taught by Bailey, for the purpose of increasing turbulence of air flow due to the tapered surface that is connected to the opening, thereby improving mixing of the air and water.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, modified Huang discloses wherein the external counterbore comprises a hole (see rectangular hole of external counterbore of Ou in Annotated Fig. 1 of Ou that is more interior of the two hole portions of the counterbore) formed at the outer end of a straight hole (horizontal hole of through hole that directly connected to liquid chamber, see Annotated Fig. 1 of Ou), and a long inclined hole at the outer end of the straight hole (most external hole of external counterbore, arranged at internal end of conical hole, that connects to external atmosphere as shown in Annotated Fig. 1 of Ou. Regarding this hole by long and inclined, Bailey provides for this teaching due to the inclusion of the convex part that connects to the air flow, which results in a long inclined shape as shown in Fig. 1 of Bailey).
Ou does not disclose the hole arranged at the outer end of the straight hole is a conical hole. However, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of design choice and would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill. See in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, modified Huang discloses wherein a bending part (bendable metal part of 22, paragraph [0023] Huang) is arranged between the nozzle and the mixed-flow nozzle (see Fig. 2 of Huang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huffman (US 2004/0222317) discloses a mixing nozzle that mixes air and liquid.
Edwards (US 5,888,059) discloses a conduit with inclined long inlets for gas to enter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785