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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the turbulence chamber” is believed to be in error for --the at least one turbulence chamber--. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 does not further limit claim 1, upon which it depends because claim 8 solely recites the process for creating the at least one filter arrangement, where a product is defined by the structure of the product, not the process for producing it. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, 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 § 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, 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutter 4,320,875.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Sutter teaches a hollow-cone nozzle body (5) comprising: at least one nozzle geometry (vortex space 45); at least one turbulence chamber (25b); and at least one turbulence channel extending laterally towards the turbulence chamber (25c and 21a, where it is not claimed that the turbulence channel is straight), wherein the at least one turbulence channel tangentially opens into the turbulence chamber (25c opens tangentially into 25b as shown in figure 3), wherein the at least one turbulence channel comprises at least one filter arrangement which is arranged in a respective turbulence channel so that a direction of flow corresponds to a direction of flow of the respective turbulence channel (channels 27e oriented in same direction as flow through 21a), and wherein the at least one filter arrangement comprises a plurality of filter channels oriented along the at least one turbulence channel (plurality of channels 27e along 21a as shown in figure 5), the plurality of filter channels being arranged adjacent one another with cross sections extending, from a surface of the hollow- cone nozzle body, into a material of the hollow-cone nozzle body (cross-sections of grooves 27e are triangular as shown in figure 6, where Sutter discloses the cross-sectional shape can be changed, Col. 7, ll. 34-38). However, Sutter does not teach that the cross section of the filter channels is semi-circular. Sutter teaches that the cross-sectional shape of the filter channels can be changed (Col. 7, ll. 34-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a semi-circular cross-section for the filter channels of Sutter rather than the triangular cross-section as shown in figure 6 of Sutter because the change in shape is obvious when the particular configuration results in no change in the operation of the filter. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Sutter teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches the at least one filter arrangement (27e) is integrated into the hollow-cone nozzle body (27e is within 5).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Sutter teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches the plurality of filter channels has a first cross-sectional area which is smaller than a second cross-sectional area of the nozzle geometry (cross-sectional area of 25b is shown greater than cross-sectional area of 25c, where cross-sectional area of 25c is greater than cross-sectional area of filter channels, Col. 6, ll. 26-28).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Sutter teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches the at least one filter arrangement comprises a third cross-sectional area which is arranged perpendicularly to a direction of flow, and wherein a width of the third cross-sectional area is a multiple of a height of the third cross-sectional area, where the width is arranged perpendicularly to the height (grooves at 27e include cross-sectional areas with height and width, where there are no claimed values are ratios are claimed, only that the areas exist).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Sutter teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches the at least one filter arrangement terminates with an upper boundary of the at least one turbulence chamber (filter with 26e terminates with an outer wall, which is the inner wall of 5 surrounding 26e, where the outer wall acts as an upper boundary, where upper is not defined in the claim with regards to any directions in the nozzle body).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Sutter teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches the at least one turbulence channel is wider in a region of the at least one filter arrangement than in remaining regions of the at least one turbulence channel (turbulence channel at 27e extends about the entire circumference of nozzle body, which is wider than width of 25c as shown in figure 3, wherein the dimension that the channel is wider in is not claimed).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Sutter the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches the at least one filter arrangement is produced using an injection molding method and/or a laser processing (filter arrangement 27e, where the process of making the filter does not change the structure of the filter). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Dependent Claims 9 and 10, Sutter teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches that the at least one nozzle geometry, the at least one turbulence chamber, and the at least one turbulence channel are arranged so that fluid is directed through the filter channels of the filter arrangement (flow through 27e) into the at least one turbulence channel (channel bounding with 27e and 25c) to be tangentially guided into the at least one turbulence chamber (25c guides flow tangentially into 25b as shown in figure 3), whereby the fluid is set in rotation (Col. 6, ll. 1-6).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Sutter the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches the at least one turbulence channel (portion 25c of turbulence channel) is arranged so that the fluid directed through the plurality of filter channels converge into the at least one turbulence channel (portion of turbulence channel with 27e is wider than 25c, such that flow through 27e must converge into channel 25c).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Sutter teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches the plurality of filter channels has a first cross-sectional area which is smaller than a second cross-sectional area of the nozzle geometry (cross-sectional area of 25b is shown greater than cross-sectional area of 25c, where cross-sectional area of 25c is greater than cross-sectional area of filter channels, Col. 6, ll. 26-28).
Regarding Dependent Claims 13-14, Sutter teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Sutter further teaches each of the plurality of filter channels has a smallest first cross-sectional area which is smaller than a smallest second cross-sectional area of the nozzle geometry (minimum cross-sectional area of filter at 27e will be smallest allowed by manufacturing tolerances, Col. 6, ll. 36-42, which is less than the smallest cross-sectional area of 25b, which will be at the exit where flow is emitted, Col. 6, ll. 1-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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