DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29-30, 34, 36 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the engagement surface of the arm has a fixed axial position relative to a remainder of the arm”. This limitation has not been previously claimed or disclosed. Paragraph [0082] of the instant application discloses “In this manner, the engagement surface 104, while extending primarily in the circumferential direction, also extends somewhat in the axial direction. This provides an ellipse/eccentric surface/engagement surface 104 that extends in three dimensions, rather than being flat and essentially extending across two dimension”, and figure 12 show that the arms pivot about pivot points 100, such that the engagement surface 102 of the arm must move axially between the positions of figures 7 and 8. Therefore, the disclosure as originally filed does not support the amended claim limitation, rendering the limitation new matter.
Claims 30, 34, 36 and 42 are rejected based upon their dependency upon claim 29.
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, 9, 12, 14, 15, 22, 98, 100, and 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, Anderson teaches a nozzle (10) comprising: a nozzle body (17) including a flow path (23) therein; a face plate (25, including sides and end plate of 25 surrounding 40) coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body (25 coupled to 17) and including an engagement surface (surface of 25 engaging 32 and 33 in figure 1 below), wherein the engagement surface is positioned on a radially oriented end surface of the face plate (surface is on radially oriented portion of 25 in figure 1 below); and an arm coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body (arms comprising 33 and 52, and 32 and 53 respectively, coupled to 17 in figure 1), the arm including an engagement surface engaging the engagement surface of the face plate (surfaces of 32 and 33 touching end surface of 25 in figure 1 below), 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 (32 and 33 are spherical), 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Anderson
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 that the arm includes a base portion (52 terminates at a base, where the entirety of the arm section is U shaped, Col. 2, ll. 31-34) that is closely received in a recess of the nozzle body (base of both 52 and 53 are received in recess of 17 at a position where 38 is shown in figure 1), and wherein the base portion and the recess have corresponding shapes (52 and 53 are inserted into recess of 17 as shown in figure 1, such that they have corresponding shapes because a gap is not shown between the components) configured as a portion of a cylinder (38 is disclosed as a ring in figure 4 when shown alone, and 52 and 53 surround 38 as shown in figure 1, and the recess of 17 surrounds 52 and 53, resulting in the recess and the base portions having a shape in the portion of a cylinder).
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 the 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 9, Anderson teaches the arm (arms 52 and 53) is pivotable (52 and 53 are able to pivot about base where base at 38 is stationary relative to motion of distal ends of 52 and 53) between a retracted position (position shown in figure 3) wherein a distal end of the arm is positioned relatively far from the center of the flow path (as shown in figure 3), and an extended position wherein a distal end of the arm is positioned relatively close to the center of the flow path (position of 52 and 53 shown in figure 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Anderson teaches the engagement surface of the arm (33 and 32) is a hemispherical protrusion (hemispherical outer side of each sphere 33 and 32 acts as a hemispherical protrusion as shown in figure 1) and is located at or adjacent to the distal end of the arm (33 and 32 are located adjacent to distal ends of 52 and 53 respectively, where adjacent is a relative term and the components are adjacent to each other relative to other components of the nozzle shown in figure 1).
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 15, Anderson teaches the arm includes an inner portion (52 and 53 respectively) and an outer portion position (33 and 32 respectively) on each side of the inner portion made of a relatively soft material relative to the inner portion (33 and 32 are steel, and 52 and 53 are spring steel, Col. 2, ll. 30-35, where it is not claimed that the outer portion is softer than the inner portion, only that the outer portion is relatively soft relative to the inner portion).
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 (portion of 17 receiving 52 and 53 is shown as rectangular in the cross section shown in figure 1).
In regards to Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 98, Anderson teaches a nozzle (10) comprising: a nozzle body (17) including a flow path (23) therein; a face plate (25, including sides and end plate of 25 surrounding 40) coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body (25 coupled to 17) and including an engagement surface (surface of 25 engaging 32 and 33 in figure 1 above), wherein the engagement surface is positioned on a radially oriented end surface of the face plate (surface is on radially oriented portion of 25 in figure 1 above); and an arm coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body (arms comprising 33 and 32 respectively, coupled to 17 in figure 1), the arm including an engagement surface engaging the engagement surface of the face plate (surfaces of 32 and 33 touching end surface of 25 in figure 1 above), 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 (32 and 33 are spherical), 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), and the engagement surface of the arm is fixedly and non-movably coupled to a remainder of the arm (32 and 33 are single components as shown in figure 1), and wherein the radially oriented end surface is generally aligned in a radial plane (end surfaces extend along a radial plane as shown in figure 1 above).
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, 2, 5, 20, 23, 27-30, 34, 36, 42, 99, 102, and 103 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 1 and Dependent Claim 2, Haley teaches a nozzle (figure 1) comprising: a nozzle body (A and B) including a flow path therein (flow path through A in figure 2); a face plate (D) coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body (D coupled to A and B in figure 2) and including an engagement surface (eccentric grooves k shown in figure 7), wherein the engagement surface is positioned on a radially oriented end surface of the face plate (grooves k are on a radial surface of D shown in figures 2 and 7); and an arm (e) coupled to or positioned in the nozzle body (e within B as shown in figure 1), the arm including an engagement surface engaging the engagement surface of the face plate (engagement surface i), 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 (Col. 2, second full paragraph). 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 5, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley further teaches the engagement surface of the face plate (grooves k) extends generally around at least part of a perimeter of the face plate (as shown in figure 7), and wherein the engagement surface of the face plate extends in a path defining at least part of an oval or ellipse (grooves k shown as a portion of an oval, Col. 2, first full paragraph).
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley further teaches a supplemental arm (two arms e) coupled to the nozzle body (as shown in figure 2), the supplemental arm including an engagement surface (i) having a complementary shape to the engagement surface of the face plate (i travels within groove k of D), wherein the face plate and the supplemental arm are configured such that relative rotation between the face plate and the supplemental arm causes at least part of the supplemental arm to move toward or away from the center of the flow path (first and second full paragraph of column 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 23, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley further teaches the face plate is a separate piece of material relative to the nozzle body (D is a separate piece from A), and wherein the engagement surface of the face plate extends in a path defining an eccentric shape (grooves k on D are shown as an eccentric shape in figure 7).
Regarding Dependent Claim 27, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley 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 (cross-sectional area tapers from inlet at upstream end of A to exit through hole m).
In regards to Independent Claim 28, Haley teaches a nozzle (figure 1) comprising: a nozzle body (A) including a flow path therein (path through A shown in figure 2); a face plate (D) coupled or positioned in to the nozzle body (D attached to A as shown in figure 1) and including an engagement surface (grooves k); and a first arm and a second arm (arms e) each coupled or positioned in the nozzle body (arms e coupled to A in figure 2), the first and second arms each including an engagement surface engaging the engagement surface of the face plate (engagement surfaces i), wherein the engagement surface of the face plate includes a groove (k is a groove) sized and positioned to closely receive the at least part of the engagement surface of the arms (i) therein, wherein the face plate and the first and second arms are configured such that relative rotation between the face plate and the first and second arms causes a distal end of the first and second arms to move toward or away from a center of the flow path (1st and 2nd full paragraphs of column 2, where all portions of each arm e including distal ends move towards or away from the center of the flow path), wherein the nozzle is configurable in an extended position when the distal ends of the arms are positioned closest to the center of the flow path (second full paragraph of column 2, where all portions of arms e including distal ends are closest to the center of the flow path), and wherein the engagement surface of each arm is in contact with the engagement surface of the face plate when the nozzle is in the extended position (i is engaged with k for each arm in every position). 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.
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). 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).
Regarding Dependent Claim 36, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley further teaches an actuator (outer textured surface of D shown in figure 7) coupled to the nozzle body (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 (top of column 2, turned by hand), to in turn cause at least part of the arm to move toward or away from the center of the flow path (first and second full paragraphs of second column).
Regarding Dependent Claim 99, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley 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 (first and second paragraphs of second column) and does not cause axial displacement of the face plate relative to the nozzle body (rotation moves pins i within grooves k, but does not cause axial displacement of D relative to A).
Regarding Dependent Claim 102, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley further teaches the engagement surface of each arm is located at downstream-most end of the associated arm (i is at the downstream end of each arm e as shown in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 103, Haley in view of Berner teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Haley further teaches the engagement surface of each arm (pins i) is in contact with the engagement surface of the face plate (grooves k) across an entire range of movement of the face plate relative to the nozzle body (because D does not axially move relative to A during rotation, pins i will be in contact with grooves k during the full range of circumferential movement of D).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 25, Anderson teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Anderson further teaches the nozzle body includes a first nozzle body portion (17) and a second nozzle body portion (36) that are separate pieces of material, the flow path having a first flow path section having a cross sectional area that decreases along the flow direction (converging portion of 36) and a second flow path section in fluid communication with the first cross sectional area that remains constant (downstream end of 36) and a perimeter length that increases in the flow direction (41 transitions to a square shape as shown in figure 2, Col. 2, ll. 50-54). However, Anderson does not teach that the second flow path section is defined by at least part of the first nozzle body portion and a part of the second nozzle body portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the second flow path section be divided among the first and second nozzle body portions instead of a single nozzle body portion, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)). MPEP 2144.04 V C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 22 rejected under Anderson have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new teaching used to reject the claims in view of Anderson in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 28, 29, 34, 36 and 42 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the use of a spherical surface is significant because it allows smoother sliding motion of the engagement surface of the arm with the engagement surface of the face plate, and that the citation of In re Dailey would not apply to the combination of references in the rejection. The advantage disclosed by applicant is only present when the arm is pivoting relative to the face plate such that the engagement surface of the arm slides against the engagement surface of the face plate, which is not recited in either independent claims 28 or 29, and not relied upon as being taught by Haley. Therefore, the advantage cited by applicant is not solely realized by making the groove and pin hemispherical. Modifying the shape of the pins and grooves of Haley would not change the function of the arms of Haley, which do not rely upon the pins “rolling” against the surface of the grooves.
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 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