DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13, 15-19 and 21-27 are pending.
Claims 4, 9-11, 14 and 20 are cancelled.
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 of Objections and Rejections
The previous drawing objection for Figure 3 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous objection to the drawings for the inclusion of 378 (Figure 9c) stands.
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous objection to claim 25 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All other previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “378” Figure 9C. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, 19, 21 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (JP 2011-189443) in view of in view of Guo et al. (CN 107838508).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13, Iwamoto discloses an electrochemical machining nozzle (1) (abstract) (= a nozzle for an electrochemical machining device), the nozzle defining a body comprising:
A hole (HL) formed in holding member (121) for electrolytic solution (LQ) [0017] (= an internal cavity for receiving an electrolyte therein);
A flow path of electrolytic solution into the hole (Figure 1) (= an inlet port upstream of the cavity and in fluid communication therewith for delivering an electrolyte into the cavity); and
An outlet of flow path (P) of the hole (HL) [0007]-[0008] (Figure 1) (= an outlet port for dispensing a jet of electrolyte towards a surface of a workpiece, in use,),
The outlet is downstream of the hole (HL) to define the flow path (P) (= wherein the outlet port is downstream of the cavity and in fluid communication therewith so as to define a flow path from the inlet port through the cavity to the outlet port),
Wherein the nozzle (1) comprises multiple portions (121, 111, 112) (= wherein the body comprises first and second body portions forming the cavity therebetween, when the first and second body portions are attached).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of JP 2011-189443.
Iwamoto discloses multiple parts of the nozzle forming the flow path. Once assembled, Iwamoto does not indicate the portions as releasably attachable, however making the sandwiched layers separable would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to change the cross-section shape and/or perform routine maintenance and cleaning (e.g. inclining Figure 2; rectangular, Figure 3B MPEP § 2144.04 V C).
Iwamoto fails to disclose an end surface of the outlet being substantially non-planar.
In the same or similar field of electrolytic machining apparatus, Guo discloses a nozzle used to deliver electrolyte. The end surface of the nozzle (5) having optional shapes including spherical [0014], cylindrical [0015] or adjusting the curvature and thus the liquid supply [0016] (= substantially non-planar, curvature, claims 12-13). Guo discloses that the shape of the nozzle outlet (52) controls the jet of the electrolyte [0024], [0039]. Guo discloses that the outlet spray is made to be consistent with the curvature of the inner wall to be processed [0040].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a nozzle comprising a substantially non-planar end surface because Guo discloses in the same field of endeavor having a shaped nozzle outlet to control the electrolyte jet to the workpiece. It would have been obvious to modify an outlet end surface in order to treat different shaped workpieces.
Regarding claim 2, the sandwiching of the multiple parts of the flow channel reads on the claimed seal therebetween [0009].
Regarding claim 5, the sandwiching members (111, 112, 113) define opposing walls of the hole and the shape of the hole tapers in a direction towards the outlet [0015]-[0016] (Figure 1A, 2A).
PNG
media_image2.png
332
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2A of JP 2011-189443.
Regarding claim 6, Iwamoto discloses an additional tapering portion spaced from the outlet (Figure 6) that reads on the claimed throat.
PNG
media_image3.png
718
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of JP 2011-189443.
Regarding claim 8, the walls of Iwamoto disclose wherein opposing walls comprise lateral wall portions that define the hole walls, wherein the body portions are sandwiched (= attached) and wherein the hole side walls taper in a direction towards the outlet port (Figures 1a, 2a, 6).
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 refers to a recessed region. As indicated above, Guo discloses having a shaped end surface of a nozzle based on the workpiece shape. Selection of a curved or recessed surface would have been an obvious engineering design choice based on the workpiece shape and the control of electrolyte jet from the nozzle (MPEP § 2144.04 IV B).
Regarding claim 19, Iwamoto discloses wherein the outlet is defined by a spacing between portions of the nozzle (Figures 1a, 2a, etc.).
Regarding claim 21, Iwamoto discloses wherein the sandwiched members are formed of conductive material [0009]. The optional claim language is not required. Moreover, Iwamoto discloses metal and steel [0025].
Regarding claim 23, Iwamoto discloses an electrochemical machining device for machining a surface of a workpiece (O) [0001], the electrochemical machining device comprising:
An electrolytic solution (LQ) [0001], [0017] and supply source (Figures 5-6) [0013] (= An electrolyte source); and
A nozzle according to claim 1, the nozzle (1) configured and arranged to receive electrolyte from the electrolyte source via the hole input (HL) [0017] and to dispense an electrolyte jet from the outlet towards a surface of the workpiece, in use.
Regarding claim 24, Iwamoto discloses an electrochemical machining device according to claim 23, wherein the electrochemical machining device is configured to apply a voltage [0032] (= charge) to the nozzle (sandwiching members used as electrodes [0009]) and to apply a charge to a surface of a workpiece (O) such that the nozzle and said surface define first and second electrodes of an electrolytic cell, in use, and optionally wherein the nozzle is arranged so as to be spaced apart from a surface of a workpiece, in use (Figures 5-6, [0010]).
Regarding claim 25, Guo discloses a cathode nozzle having a conductive mask, so that when the jet ejected by the cathode nozzle contacts the upper surface of the conductive mask, it becomes charged and makes the circuit conductive after contacting the anode workpiece through the hollow position of the conductive mask, thereby etching the anode workpiece [0058]. An electrode contacting a workpiece is an intrinsic aspect of electrolytic processes in addition to applying a current and/or voltage.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 16-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (JP 2011-189443), in view of in view of Guo et al. (CN 107838508) and in further view of in view of Harada et al. (JP 2006-205120).
Regarding claim 3, Iwamoto in view of Guo fails to disclose first and second seal formations as claimed. The optional language “optionally wherein a sealant is provided in the recess” is not required.
Harada discloses a nozzle (100) comprising first member (11) and second member (12) [0020] including a sealing o-ring (21) which is inserted into a recessed area (Figure 4, [0026], [0028]). A fixing bolt (19) is screwed into bolt insertion holes (31, 32) of the second member (12) with the o-ring (21). The recess is of the second member (12) and the o-ring and bolt are of the first member. The o-ring, bolt and holes work together to seal the two members.
PNG
media_image4.png
486
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of JP 2006-205120.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a nozzle comprising seal formations in order to prevent any unwanted leakage of the nozzle [0017], [0030]. It would have been obvious to modify the sandwiching portions of Iwamoto with an o-ring, bolt and hole to provide a sealed environment to the nozzle.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Harada discloses wherein surfaces taper outwards (60, 61) [0039]. Harada discloses that the inclined surfaces help shape the liquid injection of the nozzle. Harada discloses combining tapered and grooved surfaces [0039]. The outlet of Harada reads on the claimed spout of claim 16.
PNG
media_image5.png
254
506
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 9 of JP 2006-205120.
Regarding claim 17, Harada discloses the use of bolt fasteners to attach the first and second members which includes a bore and fastener [0017]-[0018].
Regarding claim 22, Iwamoto discloses the device within the field of MEMS (= micron scale) [0002]-[0003]. Iwamoto is silent in regards to the sizing of the nozzle. Since Iwamoto is silent in regards to the dimensions, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the related art and arrive at a reference such as Harada. Harada discloses wherein the sizing of the nozzle is within the mm range ([0016]-[0017]). The range of Harada falls within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (JP 2011-189443), in view of in view of Guo et al. (CN 107838508), in view of Harada et al. (JP 2006-205120) and in further view of in view of and in further view of Cao (CN 108406025).
Regarding claim 18, Iwamoto in view of Guo and Harada is silent in regards to the support of the nozzle therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the related art for nozzle supports and arrive at a reference such as Cao.
Cao discloses brackets (20) supporting a nozzle (32) of an electrolytic device (Figure 3a-3b). Brackets are known in the art to support or hold an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to support the nozzle of Iwamoto in view of Guo and Harada with the bracket of Cao for supporting the nozzle in an electrochemical machining device.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (JP 2011-189443) in view of Payne et al. (US 3,990,959).
Regarding claims 26-27, Iwamoto discloses an electrochemical machining nozzle (1) (abstract) (= a nozzle for an electrochemical machining device), the nozzle defining a body comprising:
A hole (HL) formed in holding member (121) for electrolytic solution (LQ) [0017] (= an internal cavity for receiving an electrolyte therein);
A flow path of electrolytic solution into the hole (Figure 1) (= an inlet port upstream of the cavity and in fluid communication therewith for delivering an electrolyte into the cavity); and
An outlet of flow path (P) of the hole (HL) [0007]-[0008] (Figure 1) (= an outlet port for dispensing a jet of electrolyte towards a surface of a workpiece, in use,),
The outlet is downstream of the hole (HL) to define the flow path (P) (= wherein the outlet port is downstream of the cavity and in fluid communication therewith so as to define a flow path from the inlet port through the cavity to the outlet port),
Wherein the nozzle (1) comprises multiple portions (121, 111, 112) (= wherein the body comprises first and second body portions forming the cavity therebetween, when the first and second body portions are attached).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of JP 2011-189443.
Iwamoto discloses multiple parts of the nozzle forming the flow path. Once assembled, Iwamoto does not indicate the portions as releasably attachable, however making the sandwiched layers separable would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to change the cross-section shape and/or perform routine maintenance and cleaning (e.g. inclining Figure 2; rectangular, Figure 3B MPEP § 2144.04 V C).
Iwamoto fails to disclose an end surface of the outlet wherein the end surface comprises lateral regions that are at least partially curved towards a substantially planar inner region of the end surface (according to claim 26) or wherein the end surface comprises lateral regions that are at least partially curved towards inner linear tapered regions, said tapered regions extending to a substantially planar central region of the end surface (according to claim 27).
In the same or similar field of electrochemical machining nozzles (36) (title, abstract). Payne discloses a conduit (12) comprising a rigid tube wherein the free end is screwed to receive a collar (22) as shown in Figure 2. The nozzle (36) has surfaces (42) that are lateral and tapered. The end surface is partially curved towards the orifice (44) to a planar end surface or alternatively has lateral surface that curve towards a lateral region comprising the holes (60) (Figure 3, Col. 4 lines 5-15, Col. 5 lines 18-30). Payne discloses the discharge nozzle for directing free streams of electrically charged electrolyte at the workpiece (abstract). Payne discloses that the nozzle end surface advantageously has different configurations (Col. 2 lines 58-65).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a nozzle comprising an end surface of the outlet wherein the end surface comprises lateral regions that are at least partially curved towards a substantially planar inner region of the end surface (according to claim 26) or wherein the end surface comprises lateral regions that are at least partially curved towards inner linear tapered regions, said tapered regions extending to a substantially planar central region of the end surface (according to claim 27) because Payne discloses an EDM nozzle comprising different configurations for controlling the electrolyte. Payne discloses that electrolyte pressure, jet length and orifice length have a critical relationship with respect to each other and have to be closely controlled in order to maintain a jet or constant cross-section (Col. 5 lines 37-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 have been fully considered. On page 12 of the response the argument states that one of ordinary skill in the art would lack the proper motivation to combine the references as alleged and that the Applicant’s disclosure was used as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). For example, Guo is directed towards the same or similar field of endeavor of electrochemical machining as taught by Iwamoto. Both Iwamoto and Guo disclose a nozzle that is shaped, either flat or non-linear to control the output of the electrolyte. Adjusting the outlet shape is an obvious engineering design choice. The remarks on page 12 refer to a rotating flow path of Iwamoto, however, it is initially noted that the rotating flow path is not in each embodiment of Iwamoto and moreover, even if a rotating flow path is present, the adjustment to the nozzle is the outlet shape which is not a teaching away of a rotating flow path.
The argument further states on pages 12-13 that Iwamoto teaches a convergent point and Guo taches a flow that is divergent and therefore the teachings of Iwamoto and Guo are not combinable. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The Examiner acknowledges that Iwamoto for examples teaches a converging flow, however, as shown in Figures 4(A), (B), the convergence is variable. The Examiner acknowledges that Guo teaches a processing gap which is a processing parameter based on the workpiece being treated. Any differences between Iwamoto and Guo do not amount to a showing of nonobviousness and the flow path adjustments are not a teaching away of combining the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights