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 .
Status
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendments and Arguments filed 11 March 2026. As directed by applicant claims 1, 10 and 15 are amended, claim 16 is cancelled and no claims are currently added. Thus, claims 1-15 and 17- 20 are pending. This is a Final Office Action.
Priority
This application, U.S. Patent Application 18/141,750, is a Continuation of applications that were first filed as a Provisional Applications 62/165,845 and 62/198,975. It is noted that the substance of the current claims, with the needleless spray nozzles having “manifolds”, were not actually disclosed in the originally filed Provisional Applications, but were in fact only described for the first time as part of the invention, and only shown in the drawings for the first time, in the non-provisional application 15/161,005 filed 20 May 2016. Thus, the effective filing date of the claims in this application is 20 May 2016. Any properly applied U.S. prior art must have an effective filing date prior to this date.
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.
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.
[Examiner’s note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose the limitation(s)]
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0167934) in view of Blackburn (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0042191).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen discloses a needleless spray nozzle head (Hansen, ¶0032, “needleless injection nozzle”, Abstract, figs. 12 and 13) configured to selectively insert injectate into a food product, the needless spray nozzle head comprising:
an elongated member (Hansen, heads 140 and mounting system 184) having a first fluid channel (Hansen, fig. 12, injection head 140 on top, for instance) and a second fluid channel (Hansen, fig. 12, injection head 140 on bottom, for instance) that each extend at least substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the elongated member from a first end (on side with cap 198) of the elongated member towards a second end of the elongated member (on side with cap 200) that is disposed substantially opposite to the first end of the elongated member (fig. 12), wherein the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel each have at least one needleless nozzle (injection nozzle 196), and wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one needleless nozzle of the first fluid channel runs at a first intersecting angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of a portion of the first fluid channel (Hansen, can be seen in fig. 13 that the longitudinal axis is horizontal and the nozzle axis is vertical of the top element 140 and its nozzles, thus there is a first intersecting angle between the axes);
Hansen does not disclose a first manifold portion that is removably disposed at the first end of the elongated member, the first manifold portion comprising a first end defining a first opening and a second end defining at least one second opening and configured to abut the first end of the elongated member when the first manifold portion is disposed at the first end of the elongated member, the first opening in fluid communication with the at least one second opening via one or more channels extending from the first opening to the at least one second opening through the first manifold portion; and
a second manifold portion that is removably disposed at the second end of the elongated member, the second manifold portion comprising a first end defining a first opening and a second end defining at least one second opening and configured to abut the second end of the elongated member when the second manifold portion is disposed at the second end of the elongated member, the first opening in fluid communication with the at least one second opening via one or more channels extending from the first opening to the at least one second opening through the second manifold portion, the first opening in fluid communication with the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel via the at least one second opening when the second manifold portion is disposed at the second end of the elongated member.
However, Blackburn teaches a first manifold portion (Blackburn, manifold 50, figs. 3 and 4) that is [] disposed at the first end of the elongated member, the first manifold portion comprising a first end defining a first opening (Blackburn, at end 50) and a second end defining at least one second opening (Blackburn, through pipe 46)) and configured to abut the first end (right side of the elongated member in figs. 3 and 4) of the elongated member when the first manifold portion is disposed at the first end of the elongated member, the first opening in fluid communication with the at least one second opening via one or more channels (Blackburn, multiple channels 56) extending from the first opening to the at least one second opening through the first manifold portion
a second manifold portion (Blackburn, 46, ¶16, the drain/water out manifold can have an identical or similar set of ports which include valves associated therewith) that is [] disposed at the second end of the elongated member, the second manifold portion comprising a first end defining a first opening and a second end defining at least one second opening and configured to abut the second end of the elongated member when the second manifold portion is disposed at the second end of the elongated member, the first opening in fluid communication with the at least one second opening via one or more channels extending from the first opening to the at least one second opening through the second manifold portion, the first opening in fluid communication with the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel (Blackburn, multiple channels 56) via the at least one second opening (46) when the second manifold portion (Blackburn, including all the piping so that it reflects manifold 50, according to ¶16) is disposed at the second end of the elongated member”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hansen with Blackburn, to have a manifold draw the water and then split between the channels in the injection head instead of each drawing up the injectate into channels separately (via a manifold earlier placed, Hansen 286), in order to make certain that the injectate is properly distributed, and equal pressure applies along both fluid channels, and to easily cut off the fluid channels at the same time if necessary for better control, and to modify, adjust, or fix the channels without having to change or dismantle large parts of the injecting apparatus,(through a manifold and into separate lines) to achieve the predictable result of having food be properly injected with injectate that was distributed to nozzles in different fluid channels via manifolds.
And While Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the above limitations, it still does not teach a second manifold portion that is removably disposed at the first and second end of the elongated member. However, It is noted that Hansen already teaches “endcaps” for the injectate, (Hansen, 198, 200, fig. 12) and having removable manifolds on either side, in the combination of Hansen in view of Blackburn would have the advantages of easing cleaning, changing, or fixing the manifolds. Thus,. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hansen in view of Blackburn, to have “removably disposed” manifolds, in order to ease cleaning, changing or fixing the manifolds, as may be required with use.
Regarding claim 2, Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teach a needleless spray nozzle head wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one needleless nozzle of the second fluid channel runs at a second intersecting angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of a portion of the second fluid channel (Hansen, can be seen in fig. 13 that the longitudinal axis is horizontal and the nozzle axis is vertical of the bottom element 140 and its nozzles, thus there is a first intersecting angle between the axes.).
Regarding claim 3, Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a needleless spray nozzle wherein the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel are each in fluid communication with the first manifold portion and the second manifold portion (Blackburn, they are both in communication, see fig. 3, this limitation is met in the combination, see ¶16).
Regarding claim 4, Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teach a needleless spray nozzle head further comprising one or more of a purge valve or a drain line (Hansen, ¶150, elements 296 and 218, purge valve for air).
Regarding claim 5, Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a needleless spray nozzle head wherein the needleless spray nozzle head is oriented obliquely with respect to a bed of a food product transport. However this is the intended use of the device, that the food should be placed obliquely to the spray nozzles, but structurally, the spray head of Hansen in view of Zimmerman, Blackburn and Su meets all the structural limitations of the claim, and how the device may be used or oriented depends on how it is used, and not on the needless spray nozzle head itself. Thus, the reference read on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a needleless spray head, further comprising one or more risers extending from and in fluid communication with the first and second fluid channels, wherein the one or more risers are configured to allow one or more gases to be vented out of the needleless spray nozzle head (Hansen, figs. 11, 13, and 16; ¶150, elements 296 and 218, purge valve for air).
Regarding claim 7, Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but do not further teach a needleless nozzle head wherein the at least one needleless nozzle of the first and second fluid channels comprise a sapphire spray nozzle (Hansen, ¶0123).
Regarding claim 8, Hansen, in view of and Blackburn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a needleless spray nozzle head wherein the at least one needleless nozzle of the first and second fluid channels comprise a spray orifice that is less than about 300 micrometers (Hansen, ¶0122, orifice could be less than “.006” inches, which is about 152 micrometers, which is “less than about 300 micrometers”).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a needleless spray nozzle head of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second fluid channels have at least 12 needleless nozzles (Hansen, fig. 13, wherein each fluid channels appears to have 29 nozzles).
Claims 10- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0167934) in view of Blackburn (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0042191) and Su (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0221008).
Regarding claim 10, Hansen discloses a needleless spray nozzle head (Hansen, ¶0032, “needleless injection nozzle”, Abstract, figs. 12 and 13) configured to selectively insert injectate into a food product, the needleless spray nozzle head comprising:
an elongated member (Hansen, heads 140 and mounting system 184) having a first fluid channel (Hansen, fig. 12, injection head 140 on top, for instance) and a second fluid channel (Hansen, fig. 12, injection head 140 on bottom, for instance) that each extend from a first end (on side with cap 198) of the elongated member towards a second end of the elongated member (on side with cap 200) that is disposed substantially opposite to the first end of the elongated member (fig. 12), wherein the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel each have at least one needleless nozzle (injection nozzle 196), and wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one needleless nozzle of the first fluid channel runs at a first intersecting angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of a portion of the first fluid channel (Hansen, can be seen in fig. 13 that the longitudinal axis is horizontal and the nozzle axis is vertical of the top element 140 and its nozzles, thus there is a first intersecting angle between the axes); and
Hansen does not disclose a first manifold portion that is removably disposed at the first end of the elongated member and that is configured to receive a first input flow of the injectate and to help divide the first flow of the injectate and to direct a portion of the first flow of the injectate from the first end of the elongated member into each of the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel; and
a second manifold portion that is removably disposed at the second end of the elongated member and that is configured to receive a second flow of the injectate different and separated from the first input flow of the injectate, the second manifold to direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member into each of the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel.
However, Blackburn teaches a first manifold portion (Blackburn, figs. 3-4, 50) that is [] disposed at the first end of the elongated member and that is configured to receive a first input flow of the injectate and to help divide the first flow of the injectate and to direct a portion of the first flow of the injectate from the first end of the elongated member into each of the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel (Blackburn, multiple channels 56); and
a second manifold portion (Blackburn, end with 46, ¶16, ““the drain/water out manifold can have an identical or similar set of ports which include valves associated therewith”) that is [] disposed at the second end of the elongated member
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hansen with Blackburn, to have a manifold draw the water and then split between the channels in the injection head instead of each drawing up the injectate into channels separately (via a manifold earlier placed, Hansen 286), in order to make certain that the injectate is properly distributed, and equal pressure applies along both fluid channels, and to easily cut off the fluid channels at the same time if necessary for better control, and to modify, adjust, or fix the channels without having to change or dismantle large parts of the injecting apparatus,(through a manifold and into separate lines) to achieve the predictable result of having food be properly injected with injectate that was distributed to nozzles in different fluid channels via manifolds.
And while Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the second manifold is “removably” disposed, and wherein the second manifold portion is “that is configured to receive a second flow of the injectate different and separated from the first input flow of the injectate, the second manifold to direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member into each of the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel”.
Regarding the manifold being “removably” disposed, it is noted that Hansen already teaches “endcaps” for the injectate, (Hansen, 198, 200, fig. 12) and having removable manifolds on either side, in the combination of Hansen in view of Blackburn would have the advantages of easing cleaning, changing, or fixing the manifolds. Thus,. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hansen in view of Blackburn and Zimmerman, to have “removably disposed” manifolds, in order to ease cleaning, changing or fixing the manifolds, as may be required with use.
And while Hansen in view of Blackburn teach all the above limitations, they still do not teach wherein the second manifold portion is “that is configured to receive a second flow of the injectate different and separated from the first input flow of the injectate, the second manifold to direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member into each of the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel”.
However, Su teaches wherein the second manifold portion is “that is configured to receive a second flow of the injectate different and separated from the first input flow of the injectate (Su, from 50, entering at 55 at the second end of the sprinkler), the second manifold to direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member into each of the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel” (Su, fig. 4, flowing within 40 in the opposite direction of the fluid from the first end). And in combination with Hansen in view of Blackburn, the flow would be through the first and second channels, as understood from that combination above. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hansen in view of Blackburn with the teaching of Su, to have liquid also come in from the 2nd end also, to have higher pressure come out of the nozzles or more liquid, as would be desired by a practitioner, for more effective spraying in a conventional way (Su, ¶0026).
Regarding claim 11, Hansen in view of Blackburn, and Su teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, but does not further teach a needleless nozzle head wherein the elongated member, the first manifold portion, and the second manifold portion are each discrete components that are coupled together to form the needleless spray nozzle head. Here, the manifold 50 includes multiple channels 56, go along the length that lead to the spray heads and the channels are formed into portions of the elongated member (“bottom wall”) (Blackburn, ¶0047). However, being separately put together or integrated is recognized as obvious within the art (MPEP 2144.04V. Making Portable, Integral, Separable, Adjustable or Continuous”), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Blackburn in view of Su, to make the device separable, in order to make it more portable (carrying its parts) or accessible so as to fix more easily without taking the whole thing apart, and making separable is a conventionally obvious way to do it.
Regarding claim 12, Hansen in view of Blackburn and Su teach all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and further teach a needleless spray nozzle head further comprising one or more of a purge valve or a drain line (Hansen, ¶150, elements 296 and 218, purge valve for air).
Regarding claim 13, Hansen in view of Blackburn, and Su teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, but does not further teach a needleless spray nozzle head wherein the elongated member comprises a third fluid channel that has at least one needleless nozzle, wherein the first manifold portion is configured to direct a portion of the first flow of the injectate from the first end of the elongated member into the third fluid channel, and wherein the second manifold portion is configured to direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member into the third fluid channel. However, While Hansen does only picture two channels.
Regarding claim 14, Hansen in view of Blackburn, and Su teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, but does not further teach a needleless spray nozzle head wherein the needleless spray nozzle head is oriented obliquely with respect to a bed of a food product transport. However this is the intended use of the device, that the food should be placed obliquely to the spray nozzles, but structurally, the spray head of Hansen in view of Zimmerman, Blackburn and Su meets all the structural limitations of the claim, and how the device may be used or oriented depends on how it’s used, and not on the needleless spray nozzle head itself. Thus, the reference read on the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0167934) in view of Blackburn (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0042191) and Su (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0221008) and Zimmerman (U.S. Patent 7,549,369).
Regarding claim 15, Hansen discloses a needleless spray nozzle head (Hansen, ¶0032, “needleless injection nozzle”, Abstract, figs. 12 and 13) configured to selectively insert injectate into a food product, the needless spray nozzle head comprising:
an elongated member (Hansen, heads 140 and mounting system 184) having a first fluid channel (Hansen, fig. 12, injection head 140 on top, for instance) and a second fluid channel (Hansen, fig. 12, injection head 140 on bottom, for instance), (on side with cap 198) of the elongated member towards a second end of the elongated member (on side with cap 200) that is disposed substantially opposite to the first end of the elongated member (fig. 12), wherein the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel, injection nozzle 196), and wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one needleless nozzle of the first fluid channel runs at a first intersecting angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of a portion of the first fluid channel (Hansen, can be seen in fig. 13 that the longitudinal axis is horizontal and the nozzle axis is vertical of the top element 140 and its nozzles, thus there is a first intersecting angle between the axes); and
However, Hansen does not explicitly teach “a first manifold portion that is disposed at the first end of the elongated member and that is configured to receive a first input flow of the injectate and to help divide the first flow of the injectate and to direct a portion of the first flow of the injectate from the first end of the elongated member into each of the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel, and the third channel,
a second manifold portion that is removably disposed at the second end of the elongated member configured to receive a second input flow of the injectate, different and separated from the first input flow of the injectate, and direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member towards the first end of the elongated member such that the second input flow of injectate is separated within the second manifold portion to flow within the first, second, and third fluid channels.
However, Blackburn teaches a first manifold portion (Blackburn, manifold 50, figs. 3 and 4) that is disposed at the first end of the elongated member and that is configured to receive a first input flow of the injectate and to help divide the first flow of the injectate (Blackburn, at end 50) and to direct a portion of the first flow of the injectate from the first end of the elongated member into each of the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel (flow through channels 56),
a second manifold portion (Blackburn, figs. 3-4, element 46, ¶16, the drain/water out manifold can have an identical or similar set of ports which include valves associated therewith)that is
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hansen with Blackburn, to have a manifold draw the water and then split between the channels in the injection head instead of each drawing up the injectate into channels separately (via a manifold earlier placed, Hansen 286), in order to make certain that the injectate is properly distributed, and equal pressure applies along both fluid channels, and to easily cut off the fluid channels at the same time if necessary for better control, and to modify, adjust, or fix the channels without having to change or dismantle large parts of the injecting apparatus,(through a manifold and into separate lines) to achieve the predictable result of having food be properly injected with injectate that was distributed to nozzles in different fluid channels via manifolds.
And while Hansen in view of Blackburn teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the second manifold is “removably” disposed, wherein there is a “third fluid channel” (Blackburn only explicitly indicates two), and wherein the second manifold portion is “configured to receive a second input flow of the injectate, different and separated from the first input flow of the injectate, and direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member towards the first end of the elongated member such that the second input flow of injectate is separated within the second manifold portion to flow within the first, second, and third fluid channels.
However, Zimmerman, in his apparatus for injecting meat, teaches a “third fluid channel” (Zimmerman, fig. 1, manifold 20) that is disposed at the first end of the elongated member and to help divide the flow of the injectate and to direct a portion of the first flow of the injectate into channels (Zimmerman, fig. 1, dividing the injectate into “fluid channels”, infusers 14A, 14B, 14C, etc.) even with three channels (i.e. including “a third channel”) extending from the manifold from the first end of the elongated member into each of the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel (and Zimmerman has the injectate coming out the “nozzles” in the “fluid channels”, apertures 74, 75).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hansen in view of Blackburn with Zimmerman, to have a manifold draw the water and then split between three channels in the injection head instead of each drawing up the injectate into channels separately (via a manifold earlier placed, Hansen 286), in order to make certain that the injectate is properly distributed, and equal pressure applies along both fluid channels, and to easily cut off the fluid channels at the same time if necessary for better control, and to modify, adjust, or fix the channels without having to change or dismantle large parts of the injecting apparatus,(through a manifold and into separate lines) to achieve the predictable result of having food be properly injected with injectate that was distributed to nozzles in different fluid channels via a manifold.
And While Hansen in view of Blackburn and Zimmerman teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the second manifold is “removably” disposed, and wherein the second manifold portion is “configured to receive a second input flow of the injectate, different and separated from the first input flow of the injectate, and direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member towards the first end of the elongated member such that the second input flow of injectate is separated within the second manifold portion to flow within the first, second, and third fluid channels.
Regarding the manifold being “removably” disposed, it is noted that Hansen already teaches “endcaps” for the injectate, (Hansen, 198, 200, fig. 12) and having removable manifolds on either side, in the combination of Hansen in view of Blackburn would have the advantages of easing cleaning, changing, or fixing the manifolds. Thus,. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hansen in view of Blackburn and Zimmerman, to have “removably disposed” manifolds, in order to ease cleaning, changing or fixing the manifolds, as may be required with use.
And while Hansen in view of Blackburn and Zimmerman teach all the above limitations, they still do not teach wherein the second manifold portion is “configured to receive a second input flow of the injectate, different and separated from the first input flow of the injectate, and direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member towards the first end of the elongated member such that the second input flow of injectate is separated within the second manifold portion to flow within the first, second, and third fluid channels.
However, Su teaches that the second manifold ““configured to receive a second input flow of the injectate, different and separated from the first input flow of the injectate (Su, from 50, entering at 55 at the second end of the sprinkler) , and direct a portion of the second flow of the injectate from the second end of the elongated member towards the first end of the elongated member such that the second input flow of injectate is separated within the second manifold portion to flow within the [fluid channel] (Su, fig. 4, flowing within 40in the opposite direction of the fluid from the first end).
And in combination with Hansen in view of Blackburn and Zimmerman, the flow would be through the first, second, and third fluid channels, as understood from that combination above. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hansen in view of Zimmerman and Blackburn with the teaching of Su, to have liquid also come in from the 2nd end also, to have higher pressure come out of the nozzles or more liquid, as would be desired by a practitioner, for more effective spraying in a conventional way (Su, ¶0026).
Regarding claim 17, Hansen in view of Blackburn, Su, and Zimmerman teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, but does not further teach a needleless spray nozzle head wherein the needleless spray nozzle head is oriented obliquely with respect to a bed of a food product transport. However this is the intended use of the device, that the food should be placed obliquely to the spray nozzles, but structurally, the spray head of Hansen in view of Zimmerman, Blackburn and Su meets all the structural limitations of the claim, and how the device may be used or oriented depends on how it is used, and not on the needleless spray nozzle head itself. Thus, the reference read on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Hansen in view of Blackburn, Su, and Zimmerman teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, and further teach a needleless spray nozzle head further comprising one or more of a purge valve or a drain line (Hansen, ¶150, elements 296 and 218, purge valve for air).
Regarding claim 19, Hansen in view of Blackburn, Su, and Zimmerman teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, and further teaches a needless spray nozzle head comprising one or more risers extending from and in in fluid communication with the first and second fluid channels wherein the one or more risers are configured to allow one or more gases to be bended out of the needless spray nozzle head (Hansen, figs. 11, 13, and 16; ¶150, elements 296 and 218, purge valve for air).
Regarding claim 20, Hansen in view of Blackburn, Su, and Zimmerman teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, and further teaches wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one needless nozzle of the second fluid channel runs at a second intersecting angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of a portion of the second fluid channel, and wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one needleless nozzle of the third fluid channel runs at a third intersecting angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the third fluid channel (Hansen, fig. 13; the needless nozzles 50 are perpendicular and thus run at intersecting angles to the longitudinal axis of their respective channels, so a nozzle on the second channel runs at an intersecting angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the second fluid channel, and a nozzle on the third channel has a longitudinal axis that runs at an intersecting angle to the longitudinal axis of the third channel; in this case, the first and second intersecting angles are equal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that even taking Hansen over Blackburn, Blackburn is still silent regarding the second manifold being removable, and with regard to the second side being in fluid communication with the first manifold as Blackburn teaches a drain 45 (Remarks, p. 12). However, as noted above, with further consideration, Blackburn, while teaching a drain in fig. 4, element 45, he also teaches that the second end may have a manifold just like that of manifold 50, which would include piping and allowing for fluid connection (Blackburn, paragraph [0016] “In one embodiment, the drain/water out manifold can have an identical or similar set of ports which include valves associated therewith. However, in simpler systems the drain ports could merely be configured so that water draining from the sump and drain of each tray merely pour into port inlets into the drain/“water out” manifold, which would typically only be under atmospheric pressure.”). That depicted in figs. 4-5 is simply the drain/simpler version. However, this Blackburn does teach that the base/head could have the same manifold including channels/pipes, at both ends, which would allow the liquid to be under pressure at both ends. And thus, in combination, the teachings of the manifolds would be applied to the injectate manifolds for even and more powerful injections.
And Applicant argues for claim 10, that a second flow is not taught that is “different and separated” (Remarks, p. 14). However, such a second flow is taught in Su, and the liquid coming into the second end of the head of Su is separate (meaning it is a separate entrance). And, essentially, the injection head of Hansen in view of Blackburn is capable of having liquid enter both ends under pressure (with the teachings of Blackburn, paragraph 16) to create more pressure at the nozzles.
And having the manifold’s be removable (argued in Remarks, p. 12) is also obvious, see above and MPEP §2144.04(V)(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see previously attached forms PTO-892.
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 LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights