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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2026 has been entered.
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 2-5 and 7-9 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.
The terms “strategic weaknesses” in claim 9 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “strategic weaknesses” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The important or essential in relation to a plan of action needed to meet the term ““strategic” is not known. Furthermore, the maximum allowable strength to meet the term “weaknesses” is not known. In other words, how weak is “strategic weak?” How to measure such weaknesses?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tryon et al. (US 7500621. Tryon hereinafter).
With respect to claim 9, Tryon discloses a controllable spray nozzle (32. Figs. 1-27) comprising: a deformable material (Col. 4, lines 2-6) with a through-hole (44 and passage defined by 32) for passing liquid therethrough and an exit orifice (at 52b. Fig. 2B), the deformable material enabling alteration of a shape of at least one of the through-hole and the exit orifice in response to deformation in one or more directions (“…nozzle member 32 is a flexible, hollow cylindrical member and may be deformed to change an effective cross-sectional area of the outlet opening 52 of the discharge passageway 44.” Col. 4, lines 2-6); wherein the deformation changes a shape of the at least one of the through-hole and the exit orifice to (capable of) change a spray exiting from the spray nozzle (Figs 2A to Fig. 3); and wherein the deformable material is provided with a plurality of internal voids (in between finger portion 60) or strategic weaknesses, separate from the through-hole and the exit orifice, to provide nonlinear nozzle deformation.
With respect to claim 2, Tryon discloses the spray nozzle as claimed in claim 9, wherein the deformation changes a shape of at least one of the through-hole and the exit orifice to (capable of) change one or more of a flow rate, a spray pattern (“… change an effective cross-sectional area of the outlet opening 52 of the discharge passageway 44.” Col. 4, lines 2-6) and a droplet size exiting from the spray nozzle.
With respect to claim 3, Tryon discloses the spray nozzle as claimed in claim 9, wherein the deformation changes a shape of at least one of the through-hole and the exit orifice to (capable of) change a direction of spray exiting from the spray nozzle (Figs 2A to Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 4, Tryon discloses the spray nozzle as claimed in claim 9, wherein the (radially outward of the horizontal axis) deformation is provided along one or more axes that are perpendicular with respect to an (horizontal) axis passing through the through-hole.
With respect to claim 8, Tryon discloses the spray nozzle as claimed in claim 9, wherein the through-hole has two or more diameters, and the deformation changes a shape of the through-hole at each of the two or more diameters (Figs 2A to Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tryon in view of Ballu (US5323963).
With respect to claims 5 and 7, Tryon discloses the spray nozzle as claimed in claim 9, except for wherein the spray nozzle is an agricultural spray nozzle (claim 5) and wherein the deformation changes a shape of one of the exit orifice and the through-hole to be elliptical with a variable major axis and a variable minor axis (claim 7).
However, Ballu teaches a controllable spray nozzle (4 and 6; 40 and 42. Figs 1-6) comprising: a deformable material (Col. 2, line 62) with a through-hole (2 and 3) for passing liquid therethrough and an exit orifice (5), the deformable material enabling alteration of a shape of at least one of the through-hole and the exit orifice in response to deformation in one or more directions (Col. 4, lines 15-48); wherein the deformation changes a shape (by deformation of the deformable material including a change in size, shape and diameter of the element) of the at least one of the through-hole and the exit orifice to change a spray exiting from the spray nozzle; and wherein the deformable material comprises two or more materials (Interpretation A: easily deformable 4 and 40; and less deformable restraining components 6 and 42. Interpretation B: nonlinear thickness of endpiece 4 at orifice 5 to the top rim portion near 3a in Fig. 2; and nonlinear thickness of endpiece 44 at swirl chamber 3 to the two curved ends of orifice 44 in Figs. 4-6. “…the endpiece 4 may also be made as a single component with the body 1, the deformability then results solely from the shape and the thickness of the endpiece.” Col 3, line 67 to Col. 4, line 2; Interpretation C: compare figures 1, 3 and 6 showing two different directions and two different exit orifice sizes) having non-homogeneous (Interpretation A) and/or anisotropic properties and/or nonlinear properties (Interpretation B), to (capable of) provide nonlinear deformability of the deformable material. Ballu also teaches wherein the spray nozzle is an agricultural spray nozzle (Col. 1, line 46) and wherein the deformation changes a shape of one of the exit orifice and the through-hole to be elliptical with a variable major axis and a variable minor axis (see column 4, lines 42 to 48 and figures 4 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of an agricultural spray nozzle with elliptical exit orifice and the through-hole, as taught by Ballu, to Tryon’s spray nozzle, in order to preserve the flattened shape of the jet of droplets which results from the elongate shape of the orifice (see column 4, lines 42 to 48 and figures 4 and 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-5 and 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does 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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights