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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/5/2025 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 1 and 3-8 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 limitations “a hollow tubular body,” “a (single) flow channel,” “a plurality of bore holes,” and “a plurality of sections” more than once. It is currently unclear if the first and second recitation of each limitation are meant to refer to separate components of if the second recitation is meant to refer back to the first recitation of each limitation respectively. This appears to be multiple instances of double inclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(o).
Claim 1 also recites “a choke ring” as well as “a plurality of choke rings” to which it is unclear if these are meant to be part of a whole or if these are meant to refer to separate choke rings.
Claims 3-8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being dependent upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruttenberg (US Pat No 5,531,381).
Re claim 1, Ruttenberg shows a fluid discharge device (Figs. 1 & 2) defining a longitudinal direction, comprising:
a hollow tubular body (62) defining a flow channel (70/72), the hollow tubular body having a plurality of bore holes (74) arranged along a longitudinal direction of the hollow tubular body, the hollow tubular body including a plurality of sections (76), two adjacent sections of the plurality of sections being connected by a choke ring (10), and the choke ring having an opening (46) to allow a fluid to pass through,
a hollow tubular body (62) defining a single flow channel (70/72), the hollow tubular body including a plurality of sections (76) arranged in sequence along the longitudinal direction, each section having two ends (78/82) opposite each other and having a plurality of bore holes (74) arranged along the longitudinal direction for discharging fluid; and
a plurality of choke rings (10), each of the choke rings having an opening (46) penetrating the choke ring along the longitudinal direction, and the opening comprising a central portion (30) and an expanded portion (52) extending from the central portion towards the plurality of bore holes (74),
wherein ends (78/82) of two adjacent sections (76) of the hollow tubular body are inserted into one of the choke rings (10), such that the plurality of the sections (76) and the plurality of choke rings (10) are sequentially connected (Fig. 2) to form the fluid discharge device, and
wherein, in a sectional plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, a sectional area (20) of the opening (46) is smaller than a sectional area (70) of the single flow channel (70/72).
Re claims 3 & 12, Ruttenberg shows a maximum internal (cross sectional area of 52) of the at least one expanded portion (52) is greater than a maximum interval (cross sectional area of 30) of the central portion (30).
Re claims 4 & 13, Ruttenberg shows the hollow tubular body includes a first section (76), a second section (76), and a third section (76), the second section (76) is located between the first section (76) and the third section (76), and the flow channel has two inlets (78/82) at opposite ends of the hollow tubular body.
Re claim 6, Ruttenberg shows the hollow tubular body includes a first section (66) and a second section (68), and the flow channel has only one inlet (70) disposed at one end of the hollow tubular body.
Re claim 7, Ruttenberg shows the fluid discharge device includes a first choke ring (12) and a second choke ring (14), and an opening (18) of the first choke ring is larger than an opening (54) of the second choke ring.
Re claims 8 & 15, Ruttenberg discloses the fluid is water (col. 8, lines 40-41).
Re claim 9, Ruttenberg shows a fluid discharge device (Figs. 1 & 2), comprising:
a hollow tubular body (62) defining a single flow channel (70/72), the hollow tubular body including a first section (76), a second section (76) and a third section (76), the second section (76) being located between the first section (76) and the third section (76), and each of the first section, the second section, and the third section having a plurality of bore holes (74);
a first choke ring (10) connecting the first section with the second section, and the first choke ring being capable of reducing a flow rate of a fluid when the fluid flowing in the first section runs into the second section, wherein an end (78) of the first section and an end (82) of the second section are inserted into the first choke ring; and
a second choke ring (10) connecting the second section with the third section, and the second choke ring being capable of reducing a flow rate of the fluid when the fluid flowing in the third section runs into the second section, wherein an end (78) of the second section and an end (82) of the third section are inserted into the second choke ring, each of the first choke ring and the second choke ring has an opening (46) to allow a fluid to pass through, and, in a sectional plane perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the hollow tubular body, a sectional area (20) of the opening (46) is smaller than a sectional area (70) of the single flow channel (70/72).
Re claim 11, Ruttenberg shows the opening (46) comprises a central portion (30) and at least one expanded portion (52) extending from the central portion and towards the plurality of bore holes.
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 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttenberg (US Pat No 5,531,381) in view of Mee, III (US Pub No 2005/0056711 A1).
Re claims 5 & 14, Ruttenberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a spacing between two adjacent bore holes in the second section is smaller than a spacing between two adjacent bore holes in the first section, and the spacing between two adjacent bore holes in the second section is smaller than a spacing between two adjacent bore holes in the third section.
However, Mee, III teaches a fluid discharge device including a hollow tubular body (11, 12 and 13) including multiple sections (13), each section including bore holes (15) where the desired orientation of the holes may differ (paragraph 0029).
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 bore hole spacing in Ruttenberg differ as taught by Mee, III depending on the velocity of air flow, the amount of water required, etc, and different orientations may be used for enhanced uniformity of water distribution (Mee – paragraph 0029).
Further, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a bore hole spacing in the second section that is smaller than a bore hole spacing in the first and third sections since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). No criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 11-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any embodiment 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 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