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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/28/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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.
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.
6. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S Patent 3,744,723).
7. Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a cleaning system (abstract and fig 1), the cleaning system comprising: a nozzle head (10) (col 1 lines 60-63) comprising: a cleaning opening (22, fig 2) for releasing a part of the fluid (col 2 lines 26-31) and pointing in a first direction (col 2 lines 4-25; direction being projecting forward from tip 20); and a pressure balancing opening (24) for releasing a part of the fluid and pointing in a second direction (rearward direction) (col 2 lines 26-31), wherein two half spaces (seen from fig 1; nozzle 10 shown being split in two parts) comprising a first one (left side) and a second one (right side) are separated by a plane (vertical plane at the split dividing right side from left side) which is perpendicular to a center axis of the nozzle head (10’ as center axis is horizontal along the length of the nozzle) (col 2 lines 9-14), wherein a first direction vector of the first direction (left direction) points in a direction at least one of towards the first half space or away from the second half space (towards left space/side), wherein a second direction vector of the second direction (right direction) points in a direction at least one of towards the second half space or away from the first half space (towards right space/side).
8. Davis fails to specifically teach the pressure balancing opening is arranged concentrically with regard to the center axis of the nozzle head. But, the pressure balancing opening (24) is a set of pressure balancing openings (24) (fig 1; col 3 lines 40-45) that are concentrically arranged with regard to the center axis of the nozzle head (fig 1). However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make one single continuous integral piece and thus connect/combine all the pressure balancing openings to make one single pressure balancing opening, thus teaching the pressure balancing opening is arranged concentrically with regard to the center axis of the nozzle head in order to have more continuous pressure releasing around the nozzle. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) B.
9. The recitation of “for cleaning the inside of a glass element with a fluid” has not been given significant patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02.
10. Regarding claim 2, Davis teaches wherein the nozzle head comprises a feeding opening (port 18; figs 2 and 5) (col 2 lines 4-25), the cleaning system further comprising a fluid supply line (16) that is connected to the feeding opening of the nozzle head (col 1 lines 62-66 and fig 5).
11. Regarding claim 3, Davis teaches wherein the feeding opening points in a third direction (direction 18’) and a third direction vector of the third direction points towards the first half space and/or away from the second half space (towards left space/side) (col 2 lines 4-25 and as seen from figs 5 and 6).
12. Regarding claim 4, Davis teaches wherein the feeding opening points in a third direction (direction 18’) and a third direction vector of the third direction is anti-parallel to the second direction (not parallel to 10’ thus anti-parallel to right space/side).
13. Regarding claim 5, Davis fails to specifically teaches wherein the feeding opening points in a third direction (direction 18’) but fails to specifically teach a third direction vector of the third direction is parallel to the center axis of the nozzle head. However, Davis also teaches that it is known for the feeding opening to be arranged offset and not intercepting the center axis (para 2 lines 4-17), thus reading on a third direction vector of the third direction parallel to the center axis, in order to achieve different fluid speeds, spray patterns, and cleaning efficiencies. 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 feeding opening of Davis such that a third direction vector of the third direction is parallel to the center axis of the nozzle head in order to achieve different fluid speeds, spray patterns, and cleaning efficiencies.
14. Regarding claim 6, Davis teaches wherein the center axis is a rotation axis of the nozzle head (col 3 lines 3-5).
15. Regarding claim 7, Davis fails to teach wherein the nozzle head is configured so that a first ratio of an amount of fluid released by the pressure balancing opening to an amount of fluid released by the cleaning opening is 0.2 or more and/or is 20 or less.
16. Regarding claim 8, Davis fails to specifically teach wherein the first ratio is 1 to 5.
17. However, the ratio of an amount of fluid released by the pressure balancing opening to an amount of fluid released by the cleaning opening is a result effective variable. The ratio affects the flow speed, spray pattern, and cleaning efficiency. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the appropriate ratio of an amount of fluid released by the pressure balancing opening to an amount of fluid released by the cleaning opening for the predictable result of achieving optimal flow speed, spray pattern, and cleaning efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the ratio such that it is 1 to 5 in order to achieve optimal flow speed, spray pattern, and cleaning efficiency. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
18. Regarding claim 9, Davis teaches wherein the nozzle head comprises at least one additional cleaning opening (other 22; fig 2) pointing in a first direction having a respective first direction vector (col 2 lines 29-31).
19. Regarding claim 10, Davis teaches wherein the cleaning opening and the at least one additional cleaning opening are arranged along at least one section of a circle (fig 2) extending around an outer circumference of the nozzle head (col 2 lines 20-29; arranged on the conical shape of tip 20).
20. Regarding claim 11, Davis teaches wherein the circle is concentric with the center axis of the nozzle head (seen from figs 1,2, and 5).
21. However, the ratio of an amount of fluid released by the pressure balancing opening to an amount of fluid released by the cleaning opening is a result effective variable. The ratio affects the flow speed, spray pattern, and cleaning efficiency. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the appropriate ratio of an amount of fluid released by the pressure balancing opening to an amount of fluid released by the cleaning opening for the predictable result of achieving optimal flow speed, spray pattern, and cleaning efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the ratio such that it is 0.2 or more and/or is 20 or less in order to achieve optimal flow speed, spray pattern, and cleaning efficiency. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
22. Regarding claim 12, Davis fails to teach wherein a second ratio of an area of a cross section of the pressure balancing opening to an area of a cross section of the cleaning opening is 0.2 or more and/or is 20 or less.
23. However, the ratio of an area of a cross section of the pressure balancing opening to an area of a cross section of the cleaning opening is 0.2 or more and/or is 20 or less is a result effective variable. The ratio affects the flow speed, spray pattern, and cleaning efficiency. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the appropriate ratio of an area of a cross section of the pressure balancing opening to an area of a cross section of the cleaning opening for the predictable result of achieving optimal flow speed, spray pattern, and cleaning efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the ratio such that it is 0.2 or more and/or is 20 or less in order to achieve optimal flow speed, spray pattern, and cleaning efficiency. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
24. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S Patent 3,744,723) and further in view of Gromes Sr. et al. (PG Pub U.S 2019/0224725).
25. Regarding claim 13, Davis fails to teach wherein the nozzle head comprises carbon fibers, a metal, a metal alloy, or a polymer. However, Gromes also teaches a nozzle head wherein it is known to comprise a metal (para 0079) in order to have desirable mechanical and material properties (para 0079). 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 of Davis such that it comprises a metal as taught by Gromes in order to have desirable mechanical and material properties.
26. Regarding claim 14, Davis fails to teach wherein the nozzle head comprises an adjustment element configured to adjust a third ratio of an amount of fluid released by the cleaning opening to an amount of fluid released by the pressure balancing opening. However, Gromes also teaches a nozzle wherein it is known to comprise an adjustment element (266, fig 17a) (para 0084) in order to govern a flowrate of the fluid released by the openings. 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 Davis such that the nozzle head comprises an adjustment element as taught by Gromes in order to govern a flowrate of the fluid released by the openings, thus adjusting a third ratio of an amount of fluid released by the cleaning opening to an amount of fluid released by the pressure balancing opening.
Conclusion
27. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714