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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 05 February 2026 is acknowledged.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacFarlane (US 240,831).
Regarding claim 1, MacFarlane discloses an apparatus comprising a sealable container (A) having an interior surface defining a volume, and an outlet (B or b); and a jet nozzle (f or d) that is attached to the container and configured to feed air (see line 43) and direct the air towards and interior surface (see Fig. 1), wherein the jet nozzle comprises having openings (e) on opposite sides of the nozzle and capable of directing air toward the ceiling and side wall (see Fig. 1 and lines 41-44).
Regarding claim 13, the ceiling spray opening includes a plurality of ceiling spray openings directed in different directions relative to a longitudinal axis L of the jet nozzle (see Fig. 1), and wherein the side wall spray opening includes a plurality of side wall spray openings directed in different directions relative to the longitudinal axis of the jet nozzle (see Fig. 1).
Claims 1-5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chalupka (EP 0232835 A2):
Regarding claim 1, Chalupka discloses an apparatus comprising a sealable container (1) having an interior surface defining a volume, and an outlet (see page 1, line 5: “Bodenablassventil” ); and a jet nozzle (7) that is attached to the container and configured to feed fluid and direct the fluid towards and interior surface, wherein the jet nozzle comprises having openings (those of 8 and 9) on opposite sides of the nozzle and capable of directing air toward the ceiling (2) and side wall (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, the apparatus is a mixing apparatus that comprises a rotatable stirring device (4), wherein the jet nozzle includes a shaft spray opening directed towards the rotatable stirring device (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the shaft spray opening is configured to provide a fan-shaped spray pattern (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the jet nozzle comprises a door spray opening (13) directed towards a door (14) of the sealable container.
Regarding claim 5, the door spray opening is inclined relative to a longitudinal axis of the jet nozzle (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the jet nozzle comprises at least two inlets that are each fluidly connected to a fluid supply via separate fluid supply lines (the two concentric supply lines of Fig. 1), each of the two inlets being arranged to feed fluid to a respective one of the ceiling spray opening and the side wall spray opening (see Fig. 1 and page 4 lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 13, the ceiling spray opening includes a plurality of ceiling spray openings directed in different directions relative to a longitudinal axis of the jet nozzle, and wherein the side wall spray opening includes a plurality of side wall spray openings directed in different directions relative to the longitudinal axis of the jet nozzle (see Fig. 1).
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalupka (EP 0232835 A2) in view of Umbach (US 4,479,612). The apparatus of Chalupka was discussed above. An actuator configured to push and retract the nozzle is not disclosed. Chaluka teaches an actuator (38, 40, 44) configured to push and retract a nozzle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized an actuator as taught by Umbach to selectively remove and reinsert the nozzle (see col. 1, lines 39-52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights