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 Amendment filed on 4/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “a conical inner surface” and claim 1 recites “a conical inner surface.” Claim 10 is therefore unclear if the conical inner surface recited in claim 10 is the same or different from the conical inner surface recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, they are interpreted to be the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2007/0095159, hereinafter Champseix in view of United States Application Publication No. 2012/0164026, hereinafter Dehmer
Regarding claim 1, Champseix teaches a nozzle structure (figures 1-4) comprising: a nozzle (item 5) that includes a pressed portion (item 21); and a holder (item 2) that includes an adjustment portion (items 23 and 43) and that supports the nozzle (figure 4), wherein: the pressed portion (item 21) is formed in an annular shape (figure 2) having an axis that is identical to an axis of the nozzle (figure 2), the adjustment portion (items 23 and 43) faces the pressed portion (figure 4) with a space therebetween obliquely above the pressed portion (figure 4), in a state in which the nozzle is supported by the holder (figure 4).
Champseix fails to teach the adjustment portion is configured to guide the nozzle to return the nozzle to alignment with a central axis of the adjustment portion by a reaction force as the pressed portion is pressed upward to abut the adjustment portion and wherein the adjustment portion is a conical inner surface of the holder.
Dehmer teaches an injection needle which has an adjustment portion (the conical tapering portion of Dehmer, item 402) is configured to guide the nozzle to return the nozzle to alignment with a central axis of the adjustment portion by a reaction force as the pressed portion (the conical tapering portion of Dehmer, item 302) is pressed upward to abut the adjustment portion (Dehmer, paragraph [0073]) and wherein the adjustment portion is a conical inner surface (the conical tapering portion of Dehmer, item 412) of the holder so that a centering mechanism is provided which acts as an assembly guidance and contributes to a sealing function (Dehmer, paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a conical inner surface of the holder and of the pressed portion so that the adjustment portion is configured to guide with an upward force because it would provide a centering mechanism which acts as an assembly guidance and contributes to a sealing function (Dehmer, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, Champseix teaches wherein the holder has an opening (the opening where item 7 goes in item 2) that penetrates vertically for taking in and out the nozzle from a side (figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Champseix teaches an insertion element (item 7) that is taken in and out of the holder (paragraph [0027]), wherein the nozzle is taken in and out of the holder while being attached to the insertion element (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Champseix teaches wherein a gap (a gap between item 5 and 7 as paragraph [0026] describes the movement of item 5 within item 7) that allows inclination of the nozzle (any gap would allow for some amount of inclination) and that limits a maximum inclination amount of the nozzle (the gap is fixed in size and therefore would limit the inclination amount)) is provided between the nozzle and the insertion element, in a radial direction of the nozzle (figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Champseix teaches the adjustment portion and the pressed portion are respectively configured axially symmetrical (figure 4), and the pressed portion is a tapered surface that faces the conical inner surface (see supra).
Regarding claim 6, Champseix and Dehmer teach all limitations of claim 4; however, they fail to teach a relationship of 2(L - R) tanψ> (D - 2R) is satisfied.
Dehmer teaches an injection needle which has an adjustment portion (the conical tapering portion of Dehmer, item 402) is configured to guide the nozzle to return the nozzle to alignment with a central axis of the adjustment portion by a reaction force as the pressed portion (the conical tapering portion of Dehmer, item 302) is pressed upward to abut the adjustment portion (Dehmer, paragraph [0073]) and wherein the adjustment portion is a conical inner surface (the conical tapering portion of Dehmer, item 412) of the holder so that a centering mechanism is provided which acts as an assembly guidance and contributes to a sealing function (Dehmer, paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum height, diameter and radius so that the 2(L - R) tanψ> (D - 2R) is satisfied which would provide a centering mechanism which acts as an assembly guidance and contributes to a sealing function (Dehmer, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 7, Champseix teaches the insertion element (item 7) is formed with a slit (the opening where item 5 passes through item 7) that opens in a direction different from an insertion direction of the insertion element with respect to the holder (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Champseix teaches wherein a nozzle attachment hole (the opening where item 5 passes through item 7) is formed in a part of the slit (figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Champseix teaches wherein the insertion element (item 7) is provided with a grip portion (figure 2, the front portion of item 7) for operating the insertion element (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and could be used for holding the insertion element).
Regarding claim 10, Champseix teaches the nozzle includes a nozzle main body (item 5) and a joint portion (where item 21 is attached) provided at an end portion opposite from a tip of the nozzle main body (figure 2), a conical inner surface is formed at the support portion (see supra), and a lower outer peripheral surface of the joint portion is a conical outer surface that fits the conical inner surface (see supra).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 4/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Champseix and Dehmer.
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights