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 on 2/5/2026 after a final rejection was mailed 1/9/2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on February 5th 2026 is acknowledged. Eight pages of amended claims were received on 2/5/2026. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled and Claims 21-39 are newly presented.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-22, 24, 28-29, 35, and 37-39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 21 Line 9, “end of nozzle head portion” should be revised to “end of the nozzle head portion” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 22 Line 1, “the unbalanced motion” should be revised to “the orbital unbalanced rotational motion” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 24 Line 2, “rotor located” should be revised to “rotor is located” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 24 Line 5, “the unbalanced orbital rotational motion” should be revised to “the orbital unbalanced rotational motion” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 28 Line 3, “the proximal end” should be revised to “the proximal end of the inlet hose barb” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 29 Line 3, “distal end has a hemispherical shape and a minor portion” should be revised to “distal end, has a hemispherical shape, and a minor portion” to ensure proper punctuation.
In Claim 35 Line 3, “distal end has a hemispherical shape and a minor portion” should be revised to “distal end, has a hemispherical shape, and a minor portion” to ensure proper punctuation.
In Claim 35 Line 3, “distal end has a hemispherical shape and a minor portion” should be revised to “distal end, has a hemispherical shape, and a minor portion” to ensure proper punctuation.
In Claim 37 Lines 2-3, “the nozzle body” should be revised to “the hollow nozzle body” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 37 Line 4, “is able” should be revised to “are able” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 38 Line 23, “end of nozzle head portion” should be revised to “end of the nozzle head portion” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 39 Line 14, “the proximal end” should be revised to “the proximal end of the inlet hose barb” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 39 Line 24, “end of nozzle head portion” should be revised to “end of the nozzle head portion” to ensure proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-39 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 21 is indefinite because Line 2 states “a hollow nozzle body coupled to a high pressure hose” and it is not clear if the high pressure hose is being positively recited as part of the claimed nozzle assembly or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 21 Line 2 will be interpreted to state, “a hollow nozzle body and a high pressure hose, the hollow nozzle body being coupled to the high pressure hose”.
Claims 22-37 depend from Claim 21, therefore Claims 22-37 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite since Claim 21 is indefinite.
Claim 30 is also indefinite because Lines 1-3 state “wherein the at least one cutting port and the first lateral port exit the nozzle head through a curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the nozzle head” in the claim. It is not clear if “the nozzle head” is the same as “the nozzle head portion”, “the head member” or something else. For the purpose of examination, Claim 30 Lines 1-3 will be interpreted to state “wherein the at least one cutting port and the first lateral port exit the head member through a curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion”.
Claim 35 is also indefinite because Lines 4-6 state “wherein the at least one cutting port, the first lateral port, and the second lateral port exit the nozzle head through a curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the nozzle head” in the claim. It is not clear if “the nozzle head” is the same as “the nozzle head portion”, “the head member” or something else. For the purpose of examination, Claim 35 Lines 4-6 will be interpreted to state “wherein the at least one cutting port, the first lateral port, and the second lateral port exit the head member through a curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion”.
Claim 38 is indefinite because Line 2 states “a hollow nozzle body coupled to a high pressure hose” and it is not clear if the high pressure hose is being positively recited as part of the claimed nozzle assembly or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 38 Line 2 will be interpreted to state, “a hollow nozzle body and a high pressure hose, the hollow nozzle body being coupled to the high pressure hose”.
Claim 38 is also indefinite because Lines 9-10 state “the drag sleeve rotor is surrounded by viscous fluid that is operable to limit or retard rotational speed of a head member and the tubular shaft” and it is not clear if the head member is being positively recited as part of the claimed nozzle assembly or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 38 Lines 9-10 will be interpreted to state “the drag sleeve rotor is surrounded by viscous fluid that is operable to limit or retard rotational speed of a head member of the nozzle assembly and the tubular shaft”.
Claim 38 is also indefinite because Lines 38-40 state “wherein the at least one cutting port, the first lateral port, and the second lateral port exit the nozzle head through the curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the nozzle head” in the claim. It is not clear if “the nozzle head” is the same as “the nozzle head portion”, “the head member” or something else. For the purpose of examination, Claim 38 Lines 38-40 will be interpreted to state “wherein the at least one cutting port, the first lateral port, and the second lateral port exit the head member through the curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion”.
Claim 39 is indefinite because Line 2 states “a hollow nozzle body coupled to a high pressure hose” and it is not clear if the high pressure hose is being positively recited as part of the claimed nozzle assembly or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 39 Line 2 will be interpreted to state, “a hollow nozzle body and a high pressure hose, the hollow nozzle body being coupled to the high pressure hose”.
Claim 39 is also indefinite because Lines 7-8 state “the drag sleeve rotor is surrounded by viscous fluid that is operable to limit or retard rotational speed of a head member and the tubular shaft” and it is not clear if the head member is being positively recited as part of the claimed nozzle assembly or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 39 Lines 7-8 will be interpreted to state “the drag sleeve rotor is surrounded by viscous fluid that is operable to limit or retard rotational speed of a head member of the nozzle assembly and the tubular shaft”.
Claim 39 is also indefinite because Lines 34-36 state “wherein the at least one cutting port and the first lateral port exit the nozzle head through a curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the nozzle head” in the claim. It is not clear if “the nozzle head” is the same as “the nozzle head portion”, “the head member” or something else. For the purpose of examination, Claim 34 Lines 34-36 will be interpreted to state “wherein the at least one cutting port and the first lateral port exit the head member through a curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion”.
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.
Claims 21-23 and 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2015/0196928A1 to Wojciechowski et al. (“Wojciechowski”) in view of DE-202013100985-U1 to Lendi (“Lendi”).
As to Claim 21, Wojciechowski discloses a nozzle assembly (See #10 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a hollow nozzle body (#14 and #16) coupled to a high pressure hose (See Paragraphs 0012-0013 disclosing #12 being a source of high pressure fluid and #14 having threads to secure to a component for delivering water, which is understood to be equivalent to a high pressure hose);
a tubular shaft (#20) rotatably carried within the hollow nozzle body (See Paragraph 0013), the tubular shaft having a central axis (#40); and
a head member (#30) coupled to the tubular shaft, the head member comprising:
a nozzle head portion (#15) that is hemisphere-shaped with a rounded distal end (See RDE in Annotated Fig. 1) and a flat proximal end (See FPE in Annotated Fig. 1);
a tubular portion that extends rearward along the central axis from the flat proximal end of the nozzle head portion (See TP in Annotated Fig. 1), wherein the tubular portion is coupled to the tubular shaft (See Annotated Fig. 1);
a central blind bore defined in the nozzle head portion and the tubular portion, wherein the central blind bore is concentric with the central axis of the tubular shaft (See CBB in Annotated Fig. 1);
at least one cutting port passing through the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion from the central blind bore (See CP in Annotated Fig. 1); and
a first lateral port passing from the central blind bore through a side of the nozzle head portion located rearward from the at least one cutting port, and the first lateral port extends along a second axis (See FLP in Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski as applied to Claim 21 above, Wojciechowski does not specifically disclose wherein the first lateral port is offset and does not intersect the central axis such that the first lateral port is offset from the central blind bore; such that pressurized fluid passing through the central blind bore and out of the head member through the at least one cutting port and the first lateral port causes an orbital unbalanced rotational motion of the entire nozzle assembly on the high pressure hose within a pipe while the tubular shaft rotates with the head member within the hollow nozzle body (See Paragraph 0015 and Annotated Fig. 1, Wojciechowski discloses #32 being at different angles but does not specifically disclose whether #32 intersects #40 and whether an unbalanced motion results from fluid sprayed out of #30).
However, Lendi discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid cleaning (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0001), a nozzle assembly (See #0 in Figs. 1-3B) comprising:
a head member (#1) coupled to a tubular shaft (See Figs. 3A-3B and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0026), the head member comprising:
at least one cutting one port passing through a nozzle head portion from a central blind bore (#12, See Fig. 3A and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0030), and
a first lateral port passing from the central blind bore through a side of the nozzle head portion located rearward from the at least one cutting port, and the first lateral port extends along a second axis that is offset and does not intersect a central axis of the tubular shaft such that the first lateral port is offset from the central blind bore (See Annotated Fig. Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 3B, and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0028. The first lateral port is a hole #10 traveling along axis A2 that is angularly offset by 43 degrees relative to central axis A1 of the central blind bore. The head member also has a second lateral port shown in Annotated Fig. 3B and additional ports #11.);
wherein pressurized fluid passing through the central blind bore and out of the head member through the at least one cutting port and the first lateral port causes an orbital unbalanced rotational motion of the entire nozzle assembly on a high pressure hose within a pipe while the tubular shaft rotates with the head member within a hollow nozzle body (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0031 and See Figs. 2 and 3A-3B. Based on how #10 and #12 are oriented, fluid passing through the central blind bore and out of #1 through #10 and #12 will cause a motion that is not balanced in a lateral direction and will thus cause #0 to move in an unbalanced motion on #H while #4 rotates within #3).
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 nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski as applied to Claim 21 above to have ports #10, #11, and #12 of Lendi in place of ports #32 in the head member of Wojciechowski such that the first lateral port is offset and does not intersect the central axis such that the first lateral port is offset from the central blind bore; such that pressurized fluid passing through the central blind bore and out of the head member through the at least one cutting port and the first lateral port causes an orbital unbalanced rotational motion of the entire nozzle assembly on the high pressure hose within a pipe while the tubular shaft rotates with the head member within the hollow nozzle body, since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of avoiding an undesired pressure equalization and ensuring optimal cleaning and advancement of the nozzle assembly during rotation in a pipe (See Lendi Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0031).
As to Claim 22, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above, Wojciechowski as modified by Lendi further discloses wherein the unbalanced motion causes the entire nozzle assembly and a portion of the high pressure hose attached to the nozzle assembly to translate in the orbital unbalanced rotational motion around and against an inside surface of the pipe into which the nozzle assembly is inserted as the head member rotates within the hollow nozzle body (See Wojciechowski Fig. 1 and Lendi Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0028-0031. The unbalanced motion caused by ports of Lendi will result in the entire nozzle assembly #10 of Wojciechowski along with connected portions of hose from #12 of Wojciechowski rotating in an unbalanced orbital motion against an inside surface of pipe #34).
As to Claim 23, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above, Wojciechowski further discloses the nozzle assembly comprising a single bearing in the hollow nozzle body rotatably supporting the tubular shaft (See Paragraph 0017 disclosing a fluid bearing, which is equivalent to one single bearing in liquid form).
As to Claim 29, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above, Wojciechowski further discloses wherein the nozzle head portion comprises an exterior surface (See Annotated Fig. 1), wherein a majority portion of the exterior surface is curved and defines the rounded distal end (See Annotated Fig. 1, a majority portion of the exterior surface is curved in some manner, including a curved rounded portion and a hemispherical portion) has a hemispherical shape (See a hemispherical portion of the exterior surface in Annotated Fig. 1 such that it has a hemispherical shape) and a minor portion of the exterior surface is flat and defines the flat proximal end (See FPE in Annotated Fig. 1).
As to Claim 30, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above, Wojciechowski as modified by Lendi further discloses wherein the at least one cutting port and the first lateral port exit the nozzle head through a curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion (See Wojciechowski Annotated Fig. 1 and See Lendi Annotated Fig. 3B. Utilizing the ports of Lendi in the nozzle head of Wojciechowski will result in the at least one cutting port and the first lateral port exiting the nozzle head through the curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion).
As to Claim 31, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above, Lendi further discloses the nozzle assembly comprising a second lateral port passing from the central blind bore through an opposite side of the nozzle head portion located rearward from the at least one cutting port (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 3B), and the second lateral port extends along a third axis that is offset and does not intersect the central axis such that the second lateral port is offset from the central blind bore (See axis A3 in Annotated Fig. 2).
As to Claim 32, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 29 above, Lendi further discloses wherein the second lateral port is at a different offset angle from the central blind bore than the first lateral port, wherein the different offset angle is adapted to assist the orbital unbalanced rotational motion of the entire nozzle assembly (See Lendi Annotated Fig. 3B and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0028-0031).
As to Claim 33, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 29 above, Lendi further discloses wherein the second lateral port has a different diameter than the first lateral port, wherein the different diameter is adapted to assist the orbital unbalanced rotational motion of the entire nozzle assembly (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0031-0034. Table 1 shows that one port #10 can have a diameter of 1.9 mm and another port #10 can have a diameter of 2.0 mm. The different diameters at different angles will impact orbital unbalanced motion of the nozzle assembly).
As to Claim 34, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 29 above, Lendi further discloses wherein the second lateral port has a different geometry than the first lateral port, wherein the different geometry is adapted to assist the orbital unbalanced rotational motion of the entire nozzle assembly (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0031-0034. Table 1 shows that one port #10 can have a diameter of 1.9 mm and another port #10 can have a diameter of 2.0 mm at different angles. The different diameters at different angles result in different geometries that will impact orbital unbalanced motion of the nozzle assembly).
As to Claim 35, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 29 above, Wojciechowski as modified by Lendi further discloses wherein the nozzle head portion comprises an exterior surface (See Annotated Fig. 1), wherein a majority portion of the exterior surface is curved and defines the rounded distal end (See Annotated Fig. 1, a majority portion of the exterior surface is curved in some manner, including a curved rounded portion and a hemispherical portion) has a hemispherical shape (See a hemispherical portion of the exterior surface in Annotated Fig. 1 such that it has a hemispherical shape) and a minor portion of the exterior surface is flat and defines the flat proximal end (See FPE in Annotated Fig. 1), wherein the at least one cutting port, the first lateral port, and the second lateral port exit the nozzle head through a curved exterior surface of the rounded distal end of the nozzle head portion (See Wojciechowski Annotated Fig. 1 and See Lendi Annotated Fig. 3B, the ports all exit through the hemispherical portion).
As to Claim 36, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above, Wojciechowski does not specifically disclose wherein the tubular portion is threaded.
However, Lendi discloses wherein a tubular portion of the head member is threaded (See #13 in Fig. 3B and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0026).
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 nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above such that the tubular portion is threaded, since doing so would yield the predictable result of securing the head member to the tubular shaft (See Lendi Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0026).
As to Claim 37, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above, Wojciechowski further discloses the nozzle assembly comprising an exterior surface of the hollow nozzle body, wherein the exterior surface of the nozzle body is free from components that extend radially outward therefrom such that both the hollow nozzle body and the head member is able to contact an interior surface of the pipe during the orbital unbalanced rotational motion of the entire nozzle assembly (See Annotated Fig. 1. An outside of #30, #14, and #16 will contact an interior surface of #34 during unbalanced rotation motion).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojciechowski in view of Lendi and US Patent 4,718,142 to Wahlers (“Wahlers”).
Regarding Claim 28, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above, Wojciechowski does not specifically disclose the nozzle assembly comprising
an inlet hose barb having a distal end and a proximal end, wherein the distal end of the inlet hose barb is connected to the tubular shaft and the proximal end defines a barb portion that is inserted into the high pressure hose;
wherein the inlet hose barb defines a central passage that extends along the central axis; and
wherein the inlet hose barb defines a plurality of tractor ports that are rearwardly extended (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0013. Housing #14 has threads that allow fluid connection to #12. No barb is disclosed).
However, Wahlers discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid cleaning (See Col. 1 Lines 5-20), a nozzle assembly (See Fig. 7) comprising an inlet hose barb (#80) having a distal end and a proximal end (See Fig. 7), wherein the distal end of the inlet hose barb is connected to a tubular shaft (#90) and the proximal end defines a barb portion (See #64 in Fig. 4) that is inserted into a high pressure hose (#20);
wherein the inlet hose barb defines a central passage that extends along a central axis (#92); and
wherein the inlet hose barb defines a plurality of tractor ports that are rearwardly extended (#86).
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 nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied to Claim 21 above such that the nozzle assembly comprises an inlet hose barb having a distal end and a proximal end, wherein the distal end of the inlet hose barb is connected to the tubular shaft and the proximal end defines a barb portion that is inserted into the high pressure hose; wherein the inlet hose barb defines a central passage that extends along the central axis; and wherein the inlet hose barb defines a plurality of tractor ports that are rearwardly extended, as taught by Wahlers, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing friction fitting with the high pressure hose (See Wahlers Col. 3 Lines 15-20) while helping clear particles in a pipe in a rearward direction (See Wahlers Col. 4 Lines 40-45).
PNG
media_image1.png
890
1278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
790
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
676
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 38 and 39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in dependent Claim 24 when interpreted as best understood by the examiner: “a drag sleeve rotor on the tubular shaft, wherein the drag sleeve rotor located distally from the single bearing and the drag sleeve rotor is surrounded by viscous fluid that is operable to limit or retard rotational speed of the head member and the tubular shaft to facilitate the unbalanced orbital rotational motion of the entire nozzle assembly”.
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 38 when interpreted as best understood by the examiner: “a drag sleeve rotor on the tubular shaft, wherein the drag sleeve rotor is adjacent the bearing and the drag sleeve rotor is surrounded by viscous fluid that is operable to limit or retard rotational speed of a head member and the tubular shaft”.
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 39 when interpreted as best understood by the examiner: “a drag sleeve rotor on the tubular shaft, wherein the drag sleeve rotor located distally from the single bearing and the drag sleeve rotor is surrounded by viscous fluid that is operable to limit or retard rotational speed of a head member and the tubular shaft”.
Regarding Claims 24, 38, and 39, in reference to the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied above, Wojciechowski does not disclose the nozzle assembly comprising a drag sleeve rotor on the tubular shaft (See Paragraph 0017 disclosing a fluid bearing without a need for mechanical bearings, and a drag sleeve is not specifically disclosed. ). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to further modify the nozzle assembly of Wojciechowski in view of Lendi as applied above such that it comprises the drag sleeve rotor as claimed, as making such a modification would change the overall configuration of the nozzle assembly which utilizes a fluid bearing. Making such a modification would change the overall functionality of the nozzle assembly, and there is no prior teaching in Wojciechowski, Lendi, or other prior art that indicates that making such a further modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Claims 25-27 depend from Claim 24, therefore Claims 25-27 also contain allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly presented Claims 21-39 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights