DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/27/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-4 and 11-12 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-12 are presently pending in this application, and 7-10 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima et al. (hereinafter “Teshima”) (Pub. No.: US 2022/0025908 A1) in view of Matsubara et al. (hereinafter “Matsubara”) (Pub. No.: JP2020070783A).
Regarding claim 1, Teshima discloses an ejector (see Abstract) comprising:
an inner nozzle (inner nozzle 37, as stated in Paragraph [0059]); and
an outer nozzle (outer nozzle 38 that is provided to enclose the inner nozzle 37, as detailed in Paragraph [0059]) internally provided with the inner nozzle (as depicted in annotated Figure 2), wherein the inner nozzle and the outer nozzle are spaced with a gap,
the ejector (ejector 4, as stated in Paragraph [0050]) is configured to suck a target fluid by negative pressure that is generated by a working fluid injected from at least one of an inside of the inner nozzle and the gap and discharge the target fluid merged with the working fluid, and the ejector includes an interval restricting part placed in the gap and configured to restrict an interval of the gap.
Particularly, Teshima demonstrates as how: the ejector 4 generates the negative pressure in the negative pressure generation chamber 34 by the hydrogen gas which is supplied to the first supply ports 31 and 32 and injected from the two nozzles 37 and 38 and sucks the hydrogen off-gas from the second supply port 36 to the negative pressure generation chamber 34 by the thus generated negative pressure. Then, the ejector 4 is arranged to flow the hydrogen off-gas with the hydrogen gas to the diffuser 35 to further discharge the hydrogen off-gas and the hydrogen gas to the fuel cell 1 from the discharge port 33 (see Paragraph [0058]).
PNG
media_image1.png
804
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in annotated Figure 2, Teshima, in Paragraph [0056], explicitly teaches as how: the ejector 4 is provided with a main body casing 30 of a tubular shape to make the working fluid and the target fluid flow. In the present embodiment, the hydrogen off-gas flowing in the hydrogen circulation passage 3 corresponds to the target fluid and the hydrogen gas flowing in the hydrogen supply passage 2 corresponds to the working fluid. The main body casing 30 includes a first end part 30a and a second end part 30b.
Notably, in Paragraph [0024], Teshima discloses as how: According to the above configuration (1), the working fluid injected to the decompression chamber from the inner nozzle or the outer nozzle and the target fluid sucked into the decompression chamber can be uniformly and satisfactorily mixed. Especially, the dew condensation water can be effectively discharged out of the outer injection hole of the outer nozzle, and thus disturbance in injection of the working fluid caused by the dew condensation water can be prevented.
Especially, in Paragraph [0005], Teshima states that: in this ejector, when the cool hydrogen gas injected through the injection holes and the sucked warm hydrogen off-gas are to be merged, there is a possibility that moisture included in the hydrogen off-gas is condensed and then enters in the injection holes and that the thus condensed moisture may stay inside the injection holes. In this case, dew condensation water may disturb the injection of the hydrogen gas from the injection holes. Furthermore, under a low-temperature environment, there is a possibility that the dew condensation water gets frozen inside the injection holes, thereby inhibiting injection of the hydrogen gas from the injection holes.
Most importantly, however, is that “This flow of the working fluid generates the negative pressure in the negative pressure generation chamber and the target fluid supplied to the second supply port is sucked in a decompression chamber by the negative pressure, so that the target fluid flows in the diffuser with the working fluid to be mixed therewith and discharged out of the discharge port. Herein, the inner nozzle and the outer nozzle are arranged to enclose the diffuser axis so that any one of the axis of the inner nozzle and the axis of the outer nozzle is arranged to be aligned with the diffuser axis” (see Paragraph [0008]).
PNG
media_image2.png
800
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As best seen immediately above, Teshima evidently illustrates as how the inner nozzle 37 and the outer nozzle 38 being spaced with a gap G, as instantly claimed.
Further, as best seen in annotated Figure 6, Teshima’s ejector is surely including a second supply port 36 functioning as a target fluid supply port through which the target fluid is supplied to the ejector.
Essentially, with reference to annotated Figure 6 again, Teshima’s ejector is certainly configured to suck a target fluid by negative pressure that is generated by a working fluid injected from at least one of an inside of the inner nozzle 37 and the gap G and discharge the target fluid merged with the working fluid while the outer nozzle 38 includes a first inner periphery FIP38 having a constant inner diameter ID and a second inner periphery SIP38 sloping that an inner diameter D2 gradually increases toward an upstream side in a flowing direction of the working fluid and/or the first inner periphery FIP38 and the second inner periphery SIP38 being adjacently located from a distal end side toward the upstream side in the flowing direction, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Although Teshima discloses the majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, he does not explicitly disclose specifics regarding an interval restricting part.
Nonetheless, the use of an interval restricting portion in an ejector is well known in the art, as taught by Matsubara.
Matsubara in the same field of endeavor teaches another ejector, very similar to that seen in annotated Figures 1&6, and, in Paragraph [0025], performs as how “the circular sub-injection port 226a is provided around the circular ejection port 28a. The sub injection ports 226a are arcuate along the circumference of the injection port 28a, and four sub injection ports 226a are formed around the injection port 28a.” Notably, in Paragraph [0027], Matsubara teaches that: Fitting ridges 27a are provided on the portions of the nozzle piece 27 corresponding to the fitting grooves 223c. The fitting protrusion 27a is a protrusion having a width that fits in the fitting groove 223c. At the center of the nozzle piece 27, a main injection passage portion 28 is provided at a site extending from the base end surface to the tip end surface. In the illustrated example, the main injection passage portion 28 forming the Laval nozzle is formed at the center of the nozzle piece 27.
PNG
media_image3.png
306
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, in Paragraph [0029], Matsubara details: The present invention is not limited to the above, and the same operation and effect can be obtained even if the auxiliary injection passage portion having a constant cross-sectional area is provided. Further, although the sub-injection ports 26a, 126a, 226a are opened on the tip end face of the nozzle 20, as long as it is within the opening range of the mixing section 12, the sub-injection port is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the cone portion of the nozzle. May be opened. Furthermore, the number of sub injection ports is not limited to eight or four. When the sub-injection ports 26a and 126a are circular as in the first embodiment and the first modification, the number may be more than eight or four. Further, as in the second modification, when the sub injection ports 226a are arcuate, a plurality of sub injection ports other than eight or four may be provided, or a single sub injection port may be provided. For example, if the fitting protrusion is provided only on the base end side of the nozzle piece, it is possible to open a single annular sub-injection port at a portion around the injection port.
Most importantly, however, is the structure of Matsubara’s ejector that includes the sub-injection ports 226a and nozzle pieces 27 that are surely restricting an interval of the gap between two nozzles.
Clearly, with reference to annotated Figure 5, Matsubara explicitly exhibits as how the nozzle pieces 27 restricting the interval I27 of the gap between two nozzles.
Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that applying an idea of providing nozzle pieces to further restrict the flow passage between two nozzles, as taught by Matsubara, to another gap between two nozzles would improve efficiency.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of using nozzle pieces, as taught by Matsubara, to the ejector of Teshima, in order to further improve operation efficiency, since the modification would reduce the speed difference between the driving fluid and the suction fluid from the ejector port and the occurrence of a vortex in the merging region would be suppressed as attested by Matsubara.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the ejector would further include an interval restricting part placed in the gap and would be further configured to further restrict an interval of the gap, as instantly claimed.
Furthermore, regarding the recitation “the interval restricting part is provided: at a position upstream in the flowing direction of the working fluid relative to the target fluid supply port, and at a position on the second inner periphery of the outer nozzle without being provided at a position on the first inner periphery”, Applicant should note that such recited configuration is an obvious matter of design choice wherein no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the interval restricting part being provided at a position upstream in the flowing direction of the working fluid relative to the target fluid supply port, and at a position on the second inner periphery of the outer nozzle without being provided at a position on the first inner periphery versus the configuration taught by Teshima in view of Matsubara.
As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, in both instances, the working fluid and the target fluid will mix downstream of the interval restricting part.
Regarding claim 2, Teshima and Matsubara substantially disclose the ejector, as claimed and as detailed above. Additionally, in Paragraph [0007], Teshima specifically teaches that: an outer injection hole having an annular section in which the working fluid flows is provided between the inner nozzle and the outer nozzle, when the main body casing is horizontally placed so that the diffuser axis extends horizontally, and the outer injection hole including an upper hole portion on an upper side of the diffuser axis and a lower hole portion on a lower side of the diffuser axis is placed such that the inner nozzle and the outer nozzle are eccentrically placed from each other to make the lower hole portion narrower than the upper hole portion.
Further, in Paragraph [0070], Teshima specifically teaches: The inner nozzle 37 is formed with the inner injection hole 37a in which the hydrogen gas flows and there is provided between the inner nozzle 37 and the outer nozzle 38 the outer injection hole 38a having an annular section in which the hydrogen gas flows. Further, the outer injection hole 38a includes the upper-side hole portion 38 aa and the lower-side hole portion 38ab, and the inner nozzle 37 and the outer nozzle 38 are placed eccentrically from each other so that the lower-side hole portion 38ab is made narrower than the upper-side hole portion 38aa. Accordingly, in the outer injection hole 38a, the flow of the hydrogen gas is relatively faster in the narrow lower-side hole portion 38ab, and the dew condensation water generated in the outer injection hole 38a is collected in the lower-side hole portion 38ab by its gravity and gets easy to be blown off to the negative pressure generation chamber 34 at high speed with the hydrogen gas. Owing to this configuration, the dew condensation water can be particularly effectively discharged out of the outer injection hole 38a of the outer nozzle 38, so that the disturbance in injection of the hydrogen gas due to the dew condensation water can be restrained.
PNG
media_image4.png
528
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As best seen in annotated Figure 2, Teshima evidently illustrates as how at the outer nozzle 38 includes a distal end portion DE38 internally provided with an outer injection port 38a.
Further, with respect to the particular positioning and/or particular positioning between parts, i.e., at an upstream position from the outer injection port in a flowing direction, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “preferred” or “optimum” positioning that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the intended use and the dimensions of the device, etc.
Clearly, according to the combination of Teshima and Matsubara, the Examiner must assert that the interval restricting part or regulating portion would be further provided at an upstream position from the outer injection port in a flowing direction of the working fluid, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 5-6, Teshima and Matsubara substantially disclose the ejector, as claimed and as detailed above.
Additionally, in Paragraph [0027], Matsubara teaches as how: The nozzle piece 27 has a columnar shape with a circular cross section, and is configured such that the length along the axis is substantially the same as the mounting hole 223b. The outer diameter of the nozzle piece 27 has a tapered annular sub-shape in which the mutual distance between the nozzle piece 27 and the inner peripheral surface of the mounting hole 223b gradually decreases toward the tip when the nozzle piece 27 is arranged in the mounting hole 223b in a state where their respective axial centers are matched.
In fact, according to the combination of Teshima and Matsubara, one skilled in the art would surely recognize that the interval restricting part 27, as taught by Matsubara, would surely include an upstream end located on an upstream side in a flowing direction AA of the working fluid.
Further, in Paragraph [0027], Matsubara especially notes as how: the outer diameter of the nozzle piece 27 is configured so as to gradually increase toward the tip. Fitting ridges 27a are provided on the portions of the nozzle piece 27 corresponding to the fitting grooves 223c. The fitting protrusion 27a is a protrusion having a width that fits in the fitting groove 223c. At the center of the nozzle piece 27, a main injection passage portion 28 is provided at a site extending from the base end surface to the tip end surface. In the illustrated example, the main injection passage portion 28 forming the Laval nozzle is formed at the center of the nozzle piece 27.
As best seen in annotated Figure 7, Matsubara explicitly exhibits as how fitting ridges 27a being inclined with respect to one another or being formed in a tapered shape which converges towards one another.
PNG
media_image5.png
228
276
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using an inclined shape of the restricting part, as taught by Matsubara, to the ejector of Teshima/Matsubara, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of inclined ridges, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to further control the fluid flow through the system. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III.
Thus, according to the combination, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the upstream end located on an upstream side would be further having a shape that would be further converging toward the upstream side and/or the interval restricting part would be further including a downstream end located on a downstream side in a flowing direction of the working fluid and/or the downstream end would be further having a shape that would be further converging toward the downstream side, as instantly claimed.
7. Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima in view of Matsubara, as evidenced by Beg et al. (hereinafter “Beg”) (Pub. No.: US 2015/0292524 A1), and further in view of Mincher et al. (hereinafter “Mincher”) (Pub. No.: US 2020/0398287 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Teshima and Matsubara substantially disclose the ejector, as claimed and as detailed above. Additionally, in Paragraph [0084], Teshima specifically teaches as how: The ejector 4 is arranged with an inclination of a predetermined angle θ1 with respect to the horizontal direction so that the first end part 30 a including the first supply ports 31 and 32 and the second supply port 36 of the ejector 4 is disposed on the vertically lower side of the second end part 30b including the discharge port 33. Further, the hydrogen circulation passage 3 extending from the gas-liquid separator 7 is connected to the second supply port 36 which opens downward from the vertically lower side of the ejector 4.
More specifically, in Paragraph [0086], Teshima further details: the two sealing members 45A and 45B are provided to be adjacent to each other with a gap between the outer casing 41 and the inner casing 42 and also between the second supply port 36 and the warm water passage 40. Further, the outer casing 41 is provided with the exhaust port 47 corresponding to the gap between the two sealing members 45A and 45B. Therefore, even if the hydrogen off-gas leaks out of the second supply port 36 to the warm water passage 40 through the sealing member 45B or even if the warm water leaks out of the warm water passage 40 to the second supply port 36 through the sealing member 45A, the hydrogen off-gas or the warm water is made to be discharged outside through the exhaust port 47. Therefore, it can be prevented that the warm water flowing in the warm water passage 40 is mixed with the hydrogen off-gas and that the hydrogen off-gas flowing in the second supply port 36 is mixed with the warm water.
In this disclosure, in Paragraph [0008], Teshima successfully teaches as how: this flow of the working fluid generates the negative pressure in the negative pressure generation chamber and the target fluid supplied to the second supply port is sucked in a decompression chamber by the negative pressure, so that the target fluid flows in the diffuser with the working fluid to be mixed therewith and discharged out of the discharge port. Herein, the inner nozzle and the outer nozzle are arranged to enclose the diffuser axis so that any one of the axis of the inner nozzle and the axis of the outer nozzle is arranged to be aligned with the diffuser axis. Therefore, the working fluid injected from the inner nozzle or the outer nozzle flows in the diffuser to be aligned with (along) the diffuser axis, and the target fluid sucked in the negative pressure generation chamber flows in the diffuser to enclose the working fluid.
Then, in Paragraph [0057], Teshima especially notes: The first end part 30 a includes two first supply ports 31 and 32 to receive supply of the hydrogen gas, a second supply port 36 to receive supply of the hydrogen off-gas, a negative pressure generation chamber 34 to generate negative pressure by the hydrogen gas, and two nozzles 37 and 38 for injecting the hydrogen gas provided corresponding to the two first supply ports 31 and 32, respectively, the nozzles 37 and 38 each having a leading end placed in the negative pressure generation chamber 34. These two nozzles 37 and 38 are provided almost coaxial to each other. Further, the second end part 30b includes a diffuser 35 communicated with the negative pressure generation chamber 34 and arranged to flow the hydrogen gas and the hydrogen off-gas therein and a single discharge port 33 to discharge the hydrogen gas and the hydrogen off-gas which have flown through the diffuser 35 outside. In the present embodiment, one first supply port 31 is connected to the first injector 6A via the hydrogen supply passage 2 and the second supply port 36 is connected to the second injector 6B via the hydrogen supply passage 2.
Clearly, the second supply port that is designated as the target fluid supply port is being configured to receive supply of the target fluid. In fact, the second supply port 36, which is designated as the target fluid supply port through which the target fluid is supplied to the ejector while a diffuser 35 being configured to suck the target fluid by negative pressure that is generated by the working fluid and deliver the target fluid merged with the working fluid to a discharge port 33, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
PNG
media_image6.png
400
454
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Moreover, Matsubara, in Paragraph [0016], especially teaches as how: The main body portion 10 is a columnar member having a hollow portion at the center. In the hollow portion of the main body portion 10, a merging portion 11, a mixing portion 12, and a diffuser portion 13 are sequentially provided from the base end on the left side in FIG. 1 toward the tip on the right side. The merging portion 11 has a tapered shape in which the inner diameter gradually decreases toward the tip. The mixing portion 12 is a portion having a constant inner diameter continuous with the tip of the confluence portion 11. The diffuser portion 13 is a portion which is continuous with the tip of the mixing portion 12 and whose inner diameter gradually increases toward the tip.
Surely, with reference to annotated Figure 1, Matsubara evidently illustrates as how the diffuser portion includes a suction port with a wider opening area on one side.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a diffuser with a wider opening area, as taught by Matsubara, to the ejector of Teshima/Matsubara, in order to further improve the operation efficiency, as motivated by Matsubara in Paragraph [0028].
As an evidentiary reference, please see Beg et al. (US 2015/0292524 A1) which particularly demonstrates that: the diffuser includes a suction port with a wider opening area on one side.
PNG
media_image7.png
520
468
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Beg, in Paragraph [0031], successfully teaches: The mixing tube/diffuser assembly 52 comprises a tubular body that has a sliding fit within the downstream part of the housing 30. The tubular body has a longitudinal bore that includes a converging upstream portion 64, a central mixer portion 66 of constant diameter and a diverging downstream portion 68. The upstream portion 64, which comprises the inlet to the mixing tube/diffuser assembly 52, is located in the vicinity of the nozzle discharge zone 70, which is just downstream of the nozzle 60, to receive fluids discharged from the nozzle 60. The downstream end of the mixer tube/diffuser assembly 52 is located close to the downstream second end 34 of the housing.
Although the combination of Teshima and Matsubara, as evidenced by Beg, discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it is still silent as to the fact that the diffuser includes an oval-shaped suction port.
Nonetheless, Mincher in the same field of endeavor teaches another diffuser for a jet pump having the claimed structure.
Mincher, in Paragraph [0022], successfully teaches that: The diffuser may define a bore extending from the inlet to the outlet. The bore may be generally circular in shape. Other arcuate shapes for the diffuser/bore may be suitable, including elliptical and oval. The diffuser may have a substantially constant internal profile (for example circular) extending from the inlet to the outlet.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a oval-shaped suction port, as taught by Mincher, in the diffuser of Teshima/ Matsubara/Beg, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of a diffuser having oval-shaped suction port in a ejector device to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the fluid flow through the system. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A. Prior Art.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the diffuser would be further comprising an oval-shaped suction port with a wider opening area on one side closer to the target fluid supply port than on another side, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument resides in contention that “The combination of references fails to disclose or suggest that the interval restricting part is provided: at a position upstream in the flowing direction of the working fluid relative to the target fluid supply port, and at a position on the second inner periphery of the outer nozzle without being provided at a position on the first inner periphery, as recited in claim 1 (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 6, second paragraph).
In particular, Applicant argues that, because “Teshima fails to disclose the recited interval restricting part” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 6, fourth paragraph), and because “Matsubara's Fig. 5 illustrates fitting ridges 27a that allegedly correspond to the recited interval restricting part. However, as illustrated by Figs. 1 and 6, the fitting ridges 27a are located at a position downstream (on the right side in FIG. 1) in the flowing direction of the first refrigerant (the working fluid) relative to the second refrigerant path the suction pipe 14) corresponding to the target fluid supply port of claim 1. To the contrary, according to claim 1, the interval restricting part is provided at the position upstream in the flowing direction of the working fluid relative to the target fluid supply port (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 6, fifth paragraph), the Applicant disagrees with the combinations of the references in arriving at the claimed invention.
Further, Applicant’s' attention is drawn to the fact that Matsubara reference was brought specifically for the purpose of showing how the nozzle pieces 27 restrict the interval I27 of the gap between two nozzles.
Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that applying an idea of providing nozzle pieces to further restrict the flow passage between two nozzles, as taught by Matsubara, to another gap between two nozzles would improve efficiency.
Applicant further asserts that “the recited interval restricting part is provided at the position on the second inner periphery, but is not provided at the position on the first inner periphery. Consequently, the location of the interval restricting part is obviously distinct from Matsubara. In Matsubara, the inner peripheral surface of the nozzle 20 has no portion having a constant inner diameter, and the fitting ridges 27a are provided directly from the distal end of the nozzle 20.” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 7, second paragraph).
Nonetheless, as stated above in the analysis for the independent claim 1, Matsubara explicitly teaches that: The present invention is not limited to the above, and the same operation and effect can be obtained even if the auxiliary injection passage portion having a constant cross-sectional area is provided. Further, although the sub-injection ports 26a, 126a, 226a are opened on the tip end face of the nozzle 20, as long as it is within the opening range of the mixing section 12, the sub-injection port is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the cone portion of the nozzle (see paragraph [0029].
Furthermore, as outlined in the rejections, the recitation “the interval restricting part is provided: at a position upstream in the flowing direction of the working fluid relative to the target fluid supply port, and at a position on the second inner periphery of the outer nozzle without being provided at a position on the first inner periphery” is an obvious matter of design choice wherein no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the interval restricting part being provided at a position upstream in the flowing direction of the working fluid relative to the target fluid supply port, and at a position on the second inner periphery of the outer nozzle without being provided at a position on the first inner periphery versus the configuration taught by Teshima in view of Matsubara.
As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, in both instances, the working fluid and the target fluid will mix downstream of the interval restricting part.
Due to the aforementioned reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive and so the current rejections are not being withdrawn.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILYA PEKARSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights