DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4, 8, 14, 20, 22, 100, 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson 4,789,104.
In regards to Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 20, Anderson teaches a nozzle (10) comprising: a nozzle body (17) including a flow path therein (path through 17 shown in figure 1); a face plate coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body and including an engagement surface (faceplate 25 including end portion near resilient member 40 and threaded attachment to 17 via threads 25A, where 31 is the engagement surface), wherein the engagement surface is aligned in a radial place (31 is aligned at a place radial with and outside of 32, 33, 52 and 53 in figure 1); and an arm coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body (two arms comprising 52 and 32, and 53 and 33 respectively), wherein the arm is pivotable between a retracted position (as shown in figure 3) wherein a distal end of the arm is positioned relatively far from a center of the flow path (distal ends of 46 and 47 further from center of flow path than in figure 1), and an extended position wherein a distal end of the arm is positioned relatively close to the center of the flow path (positions of 46 and 47 in figure 1 where 46 and 47 are bent closer to center of flow path than in figure 3), the arm including an engagement surface engaging the engagement surface of the face plate (spherical portions 32 and 33 engage 31 in position of figure 3, Col. 2, ll. 43-47), wherein at least one of the engagement surface of the face plate or the engagement surface of the arm has at least part of a spherical surface (arm portions 32 and 33 shown as spherical in figure 1), wherein the other one of the engagement surface of the face plate or the engagement surface of the arm includes a groove sized and positioned to closely receive the at least part of a spherical surface therein (surfaces 31 shown as grooves to receive 32 and 33, Col. 2, ll. 43-47), the groove having at least part of a circular shape in cross section (31 as shown in figure 1 with a partially circular cross-section), and wherein the face plate and the arm are configured such that relative rotation between the face plate and the nozzle body causes at least part of the arm to move toward or away from a center of the flow path (radial movement of 32 and 33 based upon rotation of 25 shown in radially inward position in figure 1 and radially outward position in figure 3, Col. 2, ll. 54-64).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Anderson teaches that the at least part of a spherical surface is a hemispherical surface (32 and 33 are spheres such that they each comprise two hemispheres).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Anderson teaches the arm includes a base portion (48) that is closely received in a recess of the nozzle body (48 shown recessed into 17 in figure 3), and wherein the base portion and the recess have corresponding shapes configured as a portion of a circle in a longitudinal plane (ring 38 holds 48 within recess of 17 in figure 1, such that a portion of both 48, and the recess in 17 will correspond to the shape of the retaining ring 38 that the two components surround, where 38 is shown with a round shape in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Anderson teaches an actuator (outer surface of 25) coupled to the nozzle body (outer surface of 25 is a part of 25, which is coupled to 17 as described in rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the actuator is configured to be manually rotated relative to the nozzle body to cause relative rotation between the face plate and the arm (Col. 2, ll. 43-48), which in turn causes the at least part of the arm to move toward or away from the center of the flow path (Col. 2, ll. 43-48 and 57-62).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Anderson teaches the at least part of a spherical surface is a spherical ball that is rotatably coupled to the associated one of the face plate or the arm (33 and 32 are spherical balls coupled to the arms 52 and 53 respectively).
Regarding Dependent Claim 22, Anderson teaches the nozzle is configured such that fluid is configured to flow through the flow path in a flow direction (flow arrows through flow path through 17 in figure 1), wherein the flow path has a first flow path section that converges with regard to cross sectional surface area along the flow direction (converging portion at upstream end of 41), and a second flow path section in fluid communication with the first flow path section (downstream end of 41), wherein the second flow path section has a cross sectional area that decreases or remains constant along the flow direction (downstream end of 41 shown with constant cross section in figure 1), and perimeter length that increases along the flow direction (41 transitions to a square shape as shown in figure 2, Col. 2, ll. 50-54).
Regarding Dependent Claim 100, Anderson teaches that the face plate and the arm are configured such that relative rotation between the face plate and the nozzle body (relative rotation of 25 relative to 17 between figures 1 and 3) causes the arm to pivot toward or away from a center of the flow path (52 and 53 pivot inwards between the positions of figures 3 and 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 101, Anderson teaches a modulation section (portion of 17 receiving 52 and 53) in which the arm is positioned (as shown in figure 1), wherein the modulation section is rectangular or generally rectangular in cross section in a plane oriented perpendicular to the flow path (52 and 53 are described as flat sides, such that the area that they are in will be rectangular when viewed perpendicular to the direction of flow, see figure 3 and Col. 2, ll. 35-40).
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 1, 5, 23, 27, 29, 36, 98-100, 104, 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman 4,986,477 in view of Berner KR 950009378 B1.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Roman teaches a nozzle (figure 1) comprising: a nozzle body (2) including a flow path therein (portion of flow path shown in figure 2); a face plate coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body and including an engagement surface (faceplate 20 including end portion 34 with an engagement surface 31), wherein the engagement surface is aligned in a radial place (31 is aligned at a place radial with and outside of passage 35); and an arm coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body (two arms 23 integrally coupled with nozzle body 2 as shown in cross-section of figure 2), wherein the arm is pivotable between a retracted position (as shown in figure 7) wherein a distal end of the arm is positioned relatively far from a center of the flow path (26 is further from 7 in figure 7), and an extended position wherein a distal end of the arm is positioned relatively close to the center of the flow path (26 is closer to 7 in figure 8), the arm including an engagement surface (teeth 25 of each arm 23) engaging the engagement surface of the face plate (teetj 25 shown engaged with 31 in figures 1, 7 and 8), wherein the other one of the engagement surface of the face plate or the engagement surface of the arm includes a groove sized and positioned to closely receive the at least part of a surface therein (arc groove 27 is sized to receive teeth 25 of arms 23 as shown in figures 1, 7 and 8), the groove having at least part of a circular shape in cross section (arc groove 27 shown in figure 5), and wherein the face plate and the arm are configured such that relative rotation between the face plate and the nozzle body causes at least part of the arm to move toward or away from a center of the flow path (rotation of 20 causing arms 23 to move in and out shown in two position of figures 7 and 8, Col. 1, ll. 54-61). However, Roman does not teach the engagement surface of the arm has at least part of a spherical surface. Berner teaches using a pin (circular pin 30b) for engaging with a cam groove (circular groove 12b) with a hemispherical end (as shown in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the shape of the arm tips of Roman from cylindrical to hemispherical, as taught by Berner, because it has been held that it is a matter of choice to change the shape absent evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Roman in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Roman further teaches the engagement surface of the face plate extends generally around at least part of a perimeter of the face plate (surfaces associated with grooves 27 shown extending about a portion of flange 34 as shown in figures 7 and 8), and wherein the engagement surface of the face plate extends in a path defining at least part of an oval or ellipse (curvature of 27 in figures 7 and 8 shown as a portion of an oval or ellipse).
Regarding Dependent Claim 23, Roman in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Roman further teaches the face plate is a separate piece of material relative to the nozzle body (20 is a different component than rest of nozzle body as shown in figure 1), and wherein the engagement surface of the face plate extends in a path defining an eccentric shape (shape of paths of 27 shown as eccentric in figures 7 and 8, and described as a portion of a spiral, Col. 3, ll. 1-5).
Regarding Dependent Claim 27, Roman in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Roman further teaches an entirety of the flow path has a cross sectional area that decreases or remains constant in the flow direction from an inlet to an outlet thereof (flowpath from 22 to exit at 26 has a cross-sectional area that decreases or stays the same).
In regards to Independent Claim 29, Roman teaches a nozzle (figure 1) comprising: a nozzle body (2) including a flow path therein (portion of flow path shown in figure 2); a face plate (20) coupled to the nozzle body (as shown in figure 1) and including an engagement surface (surface 31 forming groove 27); and an arm (23) coupled to the nozzle body (23 is a part of 2, such that it is integrally coupled to 2 as shown in figure 1) and having an engagement surface (25) engaging the engagement surface of the face plate (as shown in figure 1) such that relative rotation between the face plate and the nozzle body causes at least part of the arm to move toward (as shown in figure 8) or away (as shown in figure 7) from a center of the flow path (7), wherein the nozzle includes a modulation section (section of nozzle including arms 23) in which the arm is positioned, wherein the modulation section is rectangular or generally rectangular in cross section in a plane oriented perpendicular to the flow path (arms 23 are shown as flat tongs in figures 7 and 8, such that they are in a section of the nozzle as a whole that is generally rectangular, where it is not claimed that the nozzle body extend radially about the arms). However, Roman does not teach the engagement surface of the arm has at least part of a spherical surface. Berner teaches using a pin (circular pin 30b) for engaging with a cam groove (circular groove 12b) with a hemispherical end (as shown in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the shape of the arm tips of Roman from cylindrical to hemispherical, as taught by Berner, because it has been held that it is a matter of choice to change the shape absent evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 36, Roman in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Roman further teaches an actuator (grooves 42) coupled to the nozzle body (42 is part of 20, which is coupled to nozzle body 2 as shown in figure 1), wherein the actuator is configured to be manually rotated relative to the nozzle body to cause relative rotation between the face plate and the arm (Col. 3, ll. 22-27), to in turn cause at least part of the arm to rigidly pivot toward or away from the center of the flow path (positions shown in figures 7 and 8).
Regarding Dependent Claim 98, Roman in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Roman further teaches the engagement surface of the arm (25) is fixedly and non-movably coupled to a remainder of the arm (25 is part of 23 as shown in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 99, Roman in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Roman further teaches the nozzle is configured such that the relative rotation between the face plate and the nozzle body causes relative movement between the face plate and the nozzle body in a circumferential direction and does not cause axial displacement of the face plate relative to the nozzle body (rotation of 20 relative to 2 causes teeth 25 to rotate within spiral grooves 27 to cause arms 23 to be bent radially inward or outward).
Regarding Dependent Claim 100, Roman in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Roman further teaches the face plate (20) and the arm are configured such that relative rotation between the face plate and the nozzle body causes the arm to pivot toward or away from the center of the flow path. (rotation of 20 relative to 2 causes teeth 25 to travel within spiral grooves 27 to cause arms 23 to be pivoted radially inward or outward as shown in figures 7 and 8).
Regarding Dependent Claim 104, Roman in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Roman further teaches the engagement surface (31) is positioned on a radially oriented end surface of the face plate (31 is on a surface of flange 34 which is the most downstream radially extending surface of the face plate).
Regarding Dependent Claim 106, Roman in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Roman further teaches the arm (23) is pivotable between a retracted position wherein a distal end of the arm is positioned relatively far from the center of the flow path (as shown in figure 7), and an extended position wherein a distal end of the arm is positioned relatively close to the center of the flow path (as shown in figure 8).
Claims 29, 30, 34, 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haley 177,239 in view of Berner KR 950009378 B1.
In regards to Independent Claim 29 and Dependent Claim 42, Haley teaches a nozzle (figure 1) comprising: a nozzle body (A) including a flow path (flow path through A shown in figure 2) therein; a face plate (D) coupled to the nozzle body (as shown in figure 2) and including an engagement surface (surface including grooves k); and an arm (arms e) coupled to the nozzle body (as shown in figure 2) and having an engagement surface (i) engaging the engagement surface of the face plate (grooves k) such that relative rotation between the face plate and the nozzle body causes at least part of the arm to move toward or away from a center of the flow path (first and second full paragraphs of column 2), and wherein the engagement surface of the arm has a fixed axial position relative to a remainder of the arm (D does not change axial position when rotated relative to A because cam grooves k are what drive arms e inward or outward), wherein the nozzle includes a modulation section in which the arm is positioned, wherein the modulation section is rectangular or generally rectangular in cross section in a plane oriented perpendicular to the flow path (cross section defined by areas c in figure 5 in which arms e slide, where the cross-section is generally rectangular with 4 sides where two of the sides are slightly curved). However, Haley does not teach that the engagement surface of the face plate and the engagement surface of the arm has at least part of a spherical surface. Berner teaches using a pin (circular pin 30b) for engaging with a cam groove (circular groove 12b) with a hemispherical end (as shown in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the shape of the pins of Haley from cylindrical to hemispherical and the groove to curved, as taught by Berner, because it has been held that it is a matter of choice to change the shape absent evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 30, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley further teaches the engagement surface extends in a path defining at an eccentric surface (k extends eccentrically to allow I, connected to e, to move in and out to reduce the are passing between arms e).
Regarding Dependent Claim 34, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley further teaches the engagement surface of the face plate is at least one of a groove or a protrusion (grooves k in D in figure 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28, 102 and 103 are allowed.
Claims 12, 15, 25, 105, 107 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 12, that a hemispherical protrusion is at a downstream most end of the pivotable arm; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 15, that the outer portion is softer than the inner portion; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 25, independent claim 28, or dependent claim 105, that a second flow path section of the nozzle body has a cross sectional area that decreases or remains the constant along the flow direction, and a perimeter length that increases along the flow direction; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 107, that the base portion of the arm is in the shape of a cylinder and is received in a recess of the nozzle body to allow pivotable movement of the arm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights