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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 11 all include the incorrect status identifier of “currently amended” which should only be utilized when an amendment is present in the claim. These claims should be labeled as “previously presented” as they have been amended since their original form but are unchanged from the previous amendments that were made to them. Claims including an incorrect status identifier can result in a notice of non-compliant amendment.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egli (US Pub No 2013/0221132 A1) in view of Giannazzo (US Pub No 2021/0086204 A1) and further in view of Knight (US Pub No 2019/0344290 A1). All citations to Egli unless otherwise specified.
Re claim 1, Egli shows a nozzle body (Figs. 1, 2 & 13-15) comprising:
at least two hollow-cone nozzle geometries (17),
wherein the nozzle body comprises an injection molded (paragraph 0045) or a 3D printed plastic material (paragraph 0045),
wherein each of the at least two hollow-cone nozzle geometries (17) comprises a nozzle bore (18) and a swirl chamber (15’), and
wherein the swirl chamber (15’) of at least one of the two hollow-cone nozzle geometries has a hollow-cone nozzle geometry and is connected to a swirl channel (13).
Egli does not teach a thermoplastic material or the swirl chamber of at least one of the two hollow-cone nozzle geometries has an asymmetrical nozzle geometry that is not rotationally symmetrical.
However, Giannazzo disclose a nozzle body that comprises an injection molded (paragraph 0022) or a 3D printed (paragraph 0022) thermoplastic material (paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermoplastic material as taught by Giannazzo, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed material.
Further, Knight discloses an injection molded nozzle body including a swirl chamber with an asymmetrical nozzle geometry that is not rotationally symmetrical (paragraphs 0043 and 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to make the swirl chamber of Egli with an asymmetrical nozzle geometry that is not rotationally symmetrical as taught by Knight to make a sprayer that is easier to manufacture and use (Knight – paragraph 0030).
Re claims 3 & 4, Egli as modified by Giannazzo and Knight disclose a nozzle bore of the at least one asymmetrical hollow-cone nozzle geometries geometry has a longitudinal axis oriented at an angle that is greater than or equal to 50[Symbol font/0xB0] and less than or equal to 88° to a nozzle outlet surface (paragraph 0019 - “the longitudinal axis and the longitudinal chamber axis either run coaxially or enclose an angle of at most 15°, preferably at most 10°, particularly at most 5°, in relation to one another” — this is an angle range of 5°-15° between the axis 32 and the axis 21 as shown in figure 1 meaning this is the angle with the vertical, to which the other side of the angle would be with the horizontal and would range 75°-85° with the horizontal, or in keeping with the claimed language, a nozzle outlet surface).
Re claim 7, Egli as modified by Giannazzo and Knight show the at least two hollow-cone nozzle geometries (17) are arranged symmetrically with one another (Fig. 13).
Re claim 8, Egli is modified by Giannazzo and Knight disclose the injection molded or a 3D printed thermoplastic material comprises a material having at least one principal component from the group PMMA, POM, PP (Giannazzo – paragraph 0040), PE (Giannazzo – paragraph 0040), ABS (Giannazzo – paragraph 0040), COC, PA (Giannazzo – paragraph 0040), PC, PBT, PEEK, PEL, PET (Giannazzo – paragraph 0040), and/or PPE.
Re claim 9, Egli as modified by Giannazzo and Knight show the at least two hollow-cone nozzle geometries (17) are at least partially produced by a laser processing.
As to the recited process of “laser processing” such is a product-by-process recitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or an obvious variant from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See MPEP 2113). Further, it is well known in the art to use “laser processing” given the versatility and speed with which the processing can be employed.
Re claim 21, Egli as modified by Giannazzo and Knight show the nozzle bore (Egli – 18) of each of the at least two hollow-cone nozzle geometries is configured to generate a spray mist (paragraph 0051).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egli (US Pub No 2013/0221132 A1) in view of Giannazzo (US Pub No 2021/0086204 A1) in view of Knight (US Pub No 2019/0344290 A1) and further in view of Hartranft et al. (US Pub No 2020/0139385 A1).
Re claims 5 & 6, Egli as modified by Giannazzo and Knight disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the nozzle bores of each of the at least two hollow-cone nozzle geometries have a diameter that is:
less than or equal to 200 µm.
However, Hartranft et al. disclose each nozzle bore has a diameter that is:
less than or equal to 200 um (equivalent to 0.00787402 inches - paragraph 0022 - “the plurality of exit outlets have a throat diameter between about 0.005” and 0.010”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzle bore in Egli as modified by Giannazzo and Knight have a diameter less than or equal to 200 µm as taught by Hartranft et al. to reduce the presence of the residual fluid film directly on or around the exit outlet (paragraph 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument directed at the Giannazzo reference, Giannazzo is in no way utilized to teach anything other than the process of 3d printing or injection molding a thermoplastic. Applicant’s refutation of the combination is to point out that Giannazzo does not teach that which it was not relied upon to teach. Applicant has pointed to no factual evidence suggesting that the device of Egli, which is explicitly disclosed to be an injection molded non-specific plastic, could somehow not be either a 3d printed or an injection molded thermoplastic. It should furthermore be noted that both 3d printing and injection molding are exceedingly well-known manufacturing processes and that thermoplastics are a widely used category of materials.
Regarding applicant’s argument directed at the Knight reference, once again, applicant appears to refute the combination by pointing to claim language that Knight was never utilized to teach. Knight is merely utilized to teach asymmetrical shapes which can be applied to the swirl chamber geometries already provided in Egli.
Similarly to the above, applicant’s argument directed at the Hartranft reference utilized for dependent claims 5 and 6 is to stipulate that Hartranft does not teach that which the reference was never utilized to teach. Whether Hartranft teaches “MBU” nozzles or a swirl channel is of no consequence as Hartranft was never utilized for that purpose. The claims in question aren’t directed to the swirl channel, the claims in question are directed to the diameter of the nozzle bore, for which Hartranft explicitly teaches a nozzle bore diameter between 0.005” and 0.010” which includes the required less than or equal to 200 µm diameter present in the claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights