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 .
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2019/0057882).
As to claim 1, Kim et al disclose a nozzle assembly comprising:
A body with internal surface forming an internal cavity within the body
A gas inlet
A fluid inlet
A mixing chamber disposed within the internal cavity of the body, wherein the mixing chamber comprising:
A mixing body region
Gas port connecting the gas inlet
A fluid port in fluid communication with fluid inlet
An outlet port
PNG
media_image1.png
715
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US ‘882) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kay et al (US 2001/0042508).
As to claim 2, Kim et al fail to teach a cap securing the mixing chamber partially within the body.
However, Kay et al disclose a cap (4, figure 2) to secure the nozzle to the mixing chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a cap taught by Kay et al, into Kim et al’s nozzle for securing the nozzle assembly to the mixing body.
As to claim 3, Kim et al in view of Kay et al fail to teach the cap comprising threaded region and seals. However, since Kay et al disclose a screw and nut for tightening, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tightening or securing method depending on the design choice.
As to claim 4, Kim et al in view of Kay et al fail to disclose the rinse ports and rinse nozzles. However, it is not clearly understood from the specification the functioning of these rinse ports and nozzles. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation that these are additional outlets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to create additional ports and nozzles, since it is merely a design choice of increasing the number of ports or nozzles for additional flow purposes.
As to claims 5-8, Kim et al disclose gas ports capable of producing swirling effects, entry body and exit body (figure 2). Kim et al in view of Kay et al fail to disclose further seals and more than one gas ports. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include additional seals and gas ports depending on the design choice, i.e. the more ports would require the more seals.
As to claims 18 and 19, Kim et al in view of Kay et al disclose:
A body with internal surface forming an internal cavity within the body
A gas inlet
A fluid inlet
A mixing chamber disposed within the internal cavity of the body, wherein the mixing chamber comprising:
A mixing body region
Gas port connecting the gas inlet
A fluid port in fluid communication with fluid inlet
An outlet port
Kim et al in view of Kay et al fail to teach the cap comprising threaded region and seals. However, since Kay et al disclose a screw and nut for tightening, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tightening or securing method depending on the design choice.
Furthermore, Kim et al in view of Kay et al fail to disclose the rinse ports and rinse nozzles. However, it is not clearly understood from the specification the functioning of these rinse ports and nozzles. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation that these are additional outlets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to create additional ports and nozzles, since it is merely a design choice of increasing the number of ports or nozzles for additional flow purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim fails to teach “A body having an internal surface forming an internal cavity within the body; and a mixing chamber disposed within the internal cavity of the body, such that an annular gap is formed between the internal surface of the internal cavity and the exterior surface of the mixing chamber.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The annotated figure below is to show the examiner’s interpretation as to the internal surface of the internal cavity to meet the claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image2.png
701
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to applicant’s argument that it is not obvious to include the cap of Kay to improve the design of Kim. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim et al in view of Kay et al fail to teach the cap comprising threaded region and seals. However, since Kay et al disclose a screw and nut for tightening, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tightening or securing method depending on the design choice.
Conclusion
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Len Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763