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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on November 5th, 2025 is acknowledged. Five pages of amended claims were received on 11/5/2025. Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, and 17 have been amended.
The claims have been amended such that no terms are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 8/5/2025. Claims 1, 8, 14-15, and 18 are now objected to as noted below. Claims 4 and 14 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as noted below. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as noted below. Claims 3-4, 9-10, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 8, 14-15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 4, “formed at a location corresponding to a sensor part” should be revised to “formed at a location corresponding to the sensor part” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 8 Lines 1-4, “wherein the spray part comprises: a guide part configured to allow the fluid flowing into the head part to flow thereinto; and a discharge port configured to discharge the fluid flowing into the guide part” should be revised to “wherein the guide part is configured to allow the fluid flowing into the head part to flow thereinto; and wherein the discharge port is configured to discharge the fluid flowing into the guide part” to ensure clarity in the claim. The examiner notes that Claim 8 includes functional limitations that further limit Claim 1, therefore Claim 8 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
In Claim 14 Line 5, “a across-section” should be revised to “a cross-section” to correct an apparent scrivener’s error.
In Claim 15 Line 4, “head part is move” should be revised to “head part is moved” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 18 Lines 1-4, “wherein the spray part comprises: a guide part configured to allow the fluid flowing into the head part to flow thereinto; and a discharge port configured to discharge the fluid flowing into the guide part” should be revised to “wherein the guide part is configured to allow the fluid flowing into the head part to flow thereinto; and the discharge port is configured to discharge the fluid flowing into the guide part” to ensure clarity in the claim. The examiner notes that Claim 18 includes functional limitations that further limit Claim 17, therefore Claim 18 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 states “The nozzle system of claim 3, wherein the inflow part has a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove”, however Claim 3 from which Claim 4 depends already states “an inflow part formed as a channel at one end of the guide groove, the channel having a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove”. Therefore Claim 4 does not further limit Claim 3.
Claim 14 states “The nozzle system of claim 13, wherein the inflow part has a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove”, however Claim 13 from which Claim 14 depends already states “an inflow part formed as a channel at one end of the guide groove, the channel having a cross-section wider than a across-section of the guide groove”. Therefore Claim 14 does not further limit Claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 5-8, 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB 2018/0021792 A1 to Lopez et al. (“Lopez”).
As to Claim 1, Lopez discloses a nozzle system (See Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a head part (#130 and #140) including a spray part (#140) including a guide part (See an inlet to #140 in Annotated Fig. 1) configured to guide fluid flowing into the head part (See Figs. 1-2 and Paragraph 0041) and a discharge port (See an outlet of #140 in Annotated Fig. 1) configured to spray the fluid toward a sensor part (See #15 in Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0033), the spray part being formed at a location corresponding to a sensor part (See Fig. 2);
a body part (See Annotated Fig. 1, the body part is made up #110 and the cover part) having a portion of the head part inserted thereinto and located therein (See Figs. 1-4, part of #130 is inserted into the body part), the body part having an inlet part (See Annotated Fig. 1) configured to allow fluid to flow into the body part therethrough (See Paragraph 0035 and Annotated Fig. 1, the inlet part allows fluid from #120 to flow into the body part);
a delay part (See a portion of #150 in Annotated Fig. 1 that does not include #155 and See Annotated Fig. 4) formed as a protruding post located in the body part and configured to be inserted into at least the portion of the head part (See Paragraph 0037 and Annotated Fig. 1. The delay part is inserted into a portion of #130 of the head part), such that the head part moves along the post in a longitudinal direction (See Figs. 1-4); and
a sealing part (#160) arranged to surround one end of the head part (See Figs. 1-4 and Paragraph 0045), the sealing part including a recessed portion (See Annotated Fig. 4, the sealing part #160 has a portion that is recessed within #160 and is also recessed inside of #110 such that it is hidden) configured to allow fluid flowing through the inlet part to provide pressure to a rear surface of the sealing part (See Annotated Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0045. When pressurized fluid flowing from #120 goes into #110, it provides a pressure to a rear surface of #160 on the recessed portion),
wherein the delay part protrudes in a movement direction of the head part (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 2),
wherein, when the fluid flows into the body part, the head part is configured to move along the delay part (See Figs. 1-4), and
wherein the fluid is sprayed out of the spray part of the head part when the head part is clear of an end of the delay part (See Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 4).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 1 above, Lopez discloses the nozzle system further comprising an elastic member (#170, See Paragraph 0046) located between the body part and the head part (See Figs. 1-2 and Paragraph 0046).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 1 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the head part is configured to move by hydraulic pressure of the fluid flowing into the body part in a longitudinal direction thereof along an inside of the body part (See Annotated Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 4, and Paragraphs 0039-0042), and wherein the fluid located in the body part flows into the head part when the head part is moved to a location at which an inflow part faces and is clear of the end of the delay part (See Annotated Fig. 4, when the inflow part at the inlet end of #130 faces a direction towards the delay part and is clear of the delay part, fluid in #110 will flow into #130).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 1 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the body part further comprises a cover part formed at one end thereof (See Annotated Fig. 1), and wherein the head part is operated on a side of the one end of the body part (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 2).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 1 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the spray part is located at an end of the head part (See Figs. 1-2) and is configured to have a predetermined angle so as to allow the fluid flowing into the spray part to be sprayed to the sensor part (See Fig. 2 showing fluid being sprayed at an angle to the sensor part based on an orientation of the spray part and See Paragraph 0020).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 1 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the spray part comprises:
a guide part configured to allow the fluid flowing into the head part to flow thereinto (See Annotated Fig. 1, the guide part is an inlet channel on #140 that allows fluid to flow into the spray part); and
a discharge port configured to discharge the fluid flowing into the guide part (See Annotated Fig. 1, the discharge port is an outlet of #140 that discharges fluid that flows into #140).
As to Claim 11, Lopez discloses a nozzle system (See Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a head part (#130 and #140) disposed at a location corresponding to a sensor part (See #15 in Fig. 2 and See Paragraph 0033);
a body part (See Annotated Fig. 1, the body part is made up #110 and the cover part) having a portion of the head part inserted thereinto and located therein (See Figs. 1-4, part of #130 is inserted into the body part), the body part including an inlet part (See Annotated Fig. 1) configured to allow fluid to flow into the body part therethrough (See Paragraph 0035 and Annotated Fig. 1, the inlet part allows fluid from #120 to flow into the body part);
a delay part (See a portion of #150 in Annotated Fig. 1 that does not include #155 and See Annotated Fig. 4) formed as a protruding post located in the body part and configured to be inserted into at least the portion of the head part (See Paragraph 0037 and Annotated Fig. 1. The delay part is inserted into a portion of #130 of the head part), such that the head part moves along the post in a longitudinal direction (See Figs. 1-4); and
a sealing part (#160) arranged to surround one end of the head part (See Figs. 1-4 and Paragraph 0045), the sealing part including a recessed portion (See Annotated Fig. 4, the sealing part #160 has a portion that is recessed within #160 and is also recessed inside of #110 such that it is hidden) configured to allow fluid flowing through the inlet part to provide pressure to a rear surface of the sealing part (See Annotated Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0045. When pressurized fluid flowing from #120 goes into #110, it provides a pressure to a rear surface of #160 on the recessed portion),
wherein the delay part protrudes in a movement direction of the head part (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 2),
wherein, when the fluid flows into the body part, the head part is configured to move along the delay part (See Figs. 1-4), and
wherein the fluid is sprayed out of the spray part of the head part when the head part is clear of an end of the delay part (See Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 4).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 11 above, Lopez discloses the nozzle system further comprising an elastic member (#170, See Paragraph 0046) located between the body part and the head part (See Figs. 1-2 and Paragraph 0046).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 11 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the head part is configured to move by hydraulic pressure of the fluid flowing into the body part in a longitudinal direction thereof along an inside of the body part (See Annotated Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 4, and Paragraphs 0039-0042), and wherein the fluid located in the body part flows into the head part when the head part is move to a location at which an inflow part faces and is clear of the end of the delay part (See Annotated Fig. 4, when the inflow part at the inlet end of #130 faces a direction towards the delay part and is clear of the delay part, fluid in #110 will flow into #130).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 11 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the body part further comprises a cover part formed at one end thereof (See Annotated Fig. 1), and wherein the head part is operated on a side of the one end of the body part (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 2).
As to Claim 17, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 11 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the head part comprises a spray part (See #140 in Figs. 1-2) including a guide part (See an inlet to #140 in Annotated Fig. 1) configured to guide fluid flowing into the head part (See Figs. 1-2 and Paragraph 0041) and a discharge port (See an outlet of #140 in Annotated Fig. 1) configured to spray the fluid toward the sensor part (See #15 in Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0033), the spray part being formed at a location facing the sensor part (See Fig. 2).
As to Claim 18, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 17 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the spray part comprises:
a guide part configured to allow the fluid flowing into the head part to flow thereinto (See Annotated Fig. 1, the guide part is an inlet channel on #140 that allows fluid to flow into the spray part); and
a discharge port configured to discharge the fluid flowing into the guide part (See Annotated Fig. 1, the discharge port is an outlet of #140 that discharges fluid that flows into #140).
PNG
media_image1.png
773
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
568
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez in view of US PGPUB 2019/0232921 A1 to Trebouet et al. (“Trebouet”).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 1 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the head part comprises:
a guide groove formed at a location facing the delay part (See Annotated Fig. 4 showing a guide groove within #130 that faces towards surfaces of the delay part); and
an inflow part formed as a channel at one end of the guide groove (See Annotated Fig. 4 showing an inflow part that is a channel at an inlet end of #130),
wherein the inflow part is configured to allow the fluid located in the body part to flow into the head part (See Figs. 1-3 and Annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 3 above, Lopez does not disclose wherein the channel of the inflow part has a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove (See Annotated Fig. 4, the inflow part and the guide groove appear to have cross-sections with equal diameters).
However, Trebouet discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraph 0001), a nozzle system (See Figs. 3-5) comprising a head part (#3, #8, and #9) that comprises:
a guide groove (See Annotated Fig. 3) formed at a location facing a delay part (See Annotated Fig. 3); and
an inflow part (See Annotated Fig. 3) formed as a channel at one end of the guide groove (See Annotated Fig. 3),
the channel having a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove (See Annotated Fig. 3 and See Fig. 5a, a maximum diameter of the inflow part is larger than a diameter of the guide groove),
wherein the inflow part is configured to allow fluid located in a body part (#1) to flow into the head part (See Paragraphs 0064-0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 3 above such that the channel of the inflow part has a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove by decreasing the cross-section of the guide groove of Lopez, as taught by Trebouet since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing fluid to be pressurized so that it can be ejected onto the sensor (See Trebouet Paragraph 0065).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez in view of Trebouet as applied to Claim 3 above, Trebouet further discloses wherein the inflow part has a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove (See Trebouet Annotated Fig. 3 and See Trebouet Fig. 5a, a maximum diameter of the inflow part is larger than a diameter of the guide groove).
Regarding Claim 13, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 13 above, Lopez does not disclose wherein the channel of the inflow part has a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove (See Annotated Fig. 4, the inflow part and the guide groove appear to have cross-sections with equal diameters).
However, Trebouet discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraph 0001), a nozzle system (See Figs. 3-5) comprising a head part (#3, #8, and #9) that comprises:
a guide groove (See Annotated Fig. 3) formed at a location facing a delay part (See Annotated Fig. 3); and
an inflow part (See Annotated Fig. 3) formed as a channel at one end of the guide groove (See Annotated Fig. 3),
the channel having a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove (See Annotated Fig. 3 and See Fig. 5a, a maximum diameter of the inflow part is larger than a diameter of the guide groove),
wherein the inflow part is configured to allow fluid located in a body part (#1) to flow into the head part (See Paragraphs 0064-0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 13 above such that the channel of the inflow part has a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove by decreasing the cross-section of the guide groove of Lopez, as taught by Trebouet since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing fluid to be pressurized so that it can be ejected onto the sensor (See Trebouet Paragraph 0065).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez in view of Trebouet as applied to Claim 13 above, Trebouet further discloses wherein the inflow part has a cross-section wider than a cross-section of the guide groove (See Trebouet Annotated Fig. 3 and See Trebouet Fig. 5a, a maximum diameter of the inflow part is larger than a diameter of the guide groove).
PNG
media_image3.png
958
923
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez in view of US PGPUB 2003/0234303 A1 to Berning et al. (“Berning”).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 8 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the discharge port comprises:
a first discharge port formed at a first location in a height direction of the spray part (See the “discharge port” in Annotated Fig. 1, which at least corresponds to a single first discharge port).
Regarding Claim 9, Lopez does not specifically disclose the discharge port also comprising a second discharge port formed at a second location below the first location of the first discharge port (See Figs. 1-2, only at least one discharge port is specifically disclosed).
However, Berning discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraph 0003), a nozzle system (See Fig. 5a) comprising a spray part (#10) having a discharge port (#18) that comprises a first discharge port formed at a first location in a height direction of the spray part (See an upper outlet on #18 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 that emits an upper spray shown in Fig. 5b); and a second discharge port formed at a second location below the first location of the first discharge port (See a lower outlet on #18 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 that emits a lower spray shown in Fig. 5b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle system of Lopez as applied above such that the discharge port comprises the first discharge port of Berning formed at a first location in the height direction of the spray part of Lopez and the second discharge port of Berning formed at a second location below the first location of the first discharge port, since doing so would yield the predictable result of providing adequate uniform fluid distribution over a desired surface to be cleaned (See Berning Paragraphs 0050-0052).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez in view of Berning as applied to Claim 9 above, Berning further discloses wherein an angle formed by the first discharge port and a width direction of the head part is smaller than an angle formed by the second discharge port and the width direction of the head part (See Berning Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5a, and Paragraph 0052).
As to Claim 19, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez as applied to Claim 18 above, Lopez further discloses wherein the discharge port comprises:
a first discharge port formed at a first location in a height direction of the spray part (See the “discharge port” in Annotated Fig. 1, which at least corresponds to a single first discharge port).
Regarding Claim 19, Lopez does not specifically disclose the discharge port also comprising a second discharge port formed at a second location below the first location of the first discharge port (See Figs. 1-2, only at least one discharge port is specifically disclosed).
However, Berning discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraph 0003), a nozzle system (See Fig. 5a) comprising a spray part (#10) having a discharge port (#18) that comprises a first discharge port formed at a first location in a height direction of the spray part (See an upper outlet on #18 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 that emits an upper spray shown in Fig. 5b); and a second discharge port formed at a second location below the first location of the first discharge port (See a lower outlet on #18 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 that emits a lower spray shown in Fig. 5b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle system of Lopez as applied above such that the discharge port comprises the first discharge port of Berning formed at a first location in the height direction of the spray part of Lopez and the second discharge port of Berning formed at a second location below the first location of the first discharge port, since doing so would yield the predictable result of providing adequate uniform fluid distribution over a desired surface to be cleaned (See Berning Paragraphs 0050-0052).
As to Claim 20, in reference to the nozzle system of Lopez in view of Berning as applied to Claim 19 above, Lopez further discloses wherein an angle formed by the first discharge port and a width direction of the head part is smaller than an angle formed by the second discharge port and the width direction of the head part (See Berning Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5a, and Paragraph 0052).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 23, 2025