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 e present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/15/26 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 15-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits in response to the amendment filed 06/15/26.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 15-16 are 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.
As per claim 1, the limitation “the respective orifice” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. A correction may include: "[…] wherein, each orifice of the plurality of orifices is formed by a respective internal channel issuing onto a surface of the nozzle […]".
Further, as per claim 1, the following limitations lack clear antecedent basis in the claims: “the orifice opening” and “the orifice”.
Further, as per claim 1, the limitation “each internal channel is inclined toward the center of the nozzle” is ambiguous. Specifically, the term “inclined” is not an absolute term. Rather, it is a directional term that require a relative basis for definite orientation. There is no such basis established in the originally filed claims or the specification. That is, there is no relation established in the originally filed claims or the specification between "inclined" and a fixed (i.e. absolute) origin such that would preclude interpretation by one of ordinary skill in the art of the term “inclined” as corresponding to any direction. Applicants are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by embodiment #1 of US 9909289 to Kilian et al (referred to herein as Kilian-1).
As per claims 1 and 6, and as the examiner can understand the claims, Kilian-1 discloses a nozzle for a microdoser, the nozzle comprising a plurality of orifices (2, Fig. 2a-2c; Col. 4, Ln. 23-30: diameter 1.5mm) arranged in a matrix configuration at a center of the nozzle (Fig. 2a-2c), wherein for each orifice an internal channel (18) issues onto a surface of the nozzle to form a respective orifice (Fig. 2a-2b), the nozzle having a total orifice opening area of at least 10mm2 (Col. 4, Ln. 23-30; Fig. 1a – 27 channels with diameter of 1.5mm = total orifice opening of more than 10 mm2), the orifice is configured so that no circle larger than 1.6mm in diameter can be inscribed within the opening of said orifice (Col. 4, Ln. 23-30: 1.5mm diameter), and wherein each internal channel is inclined toward the center of the nozzle at the surface of the nozzle (Fig. 2a).
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 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over embodiment #1 of US 9909289 to Kilian et al (referred to herein as Kilian-1) in view of embodiment #2 of US 9909289 to Kilian et al (referred to herein as Kilian-2).
As per claim 5, Kilian-1 discloses the claimed invention except for each orifice of the plurality of orifices has a circular shape. Kilian-2 teaches a nozzle (3, Fig. 1a-1c) for a microdoser, the nozzle comprising a plurality of circular orifices (12, Fig. 1c). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try to modify Kilian-1 according to the aforementioned teachings from Kilian-2 for reasons including to produce some desired flow-control effect.
As per claim 7, Kilian-1 further discloses the plurality of orifices comprises at least 3 orifices (Fig. 2a-2c).
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12110224 to Limpens et al in view of US 9909289 to Kilian.
As per claim 1, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Limpens discloses a nozzle for a microdoser, the nozzle comprising a plurality of orifices (2, Fig. 1a; Col. 4, Ln. 23-30: diameter 1.5mm) arranged in a matrix configuration at a center of the nozzle (Fig. 1a), the orifice is configured so that no circle larger than 1.6mm in diameter can be inscribed within the opening of said orifice (Col. 4, Ln. 23-30: 1.5mm diameter), wherein each internal channel is inclined toward the center of the nozzle at the surface of the nozzle (Fig. 2a-2b). Limpens does not disclose for each orifice an internal channel issued onto a surface of the nozzle to form a respective orifice. Killian teaches a nozzle (Fig. 2a) comprising a plurality of orifices (20), wherein for each orifice an internal channel issues onto a surface of the nozzle (17) to form a respective orifice. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Limpens according to the aforementioned teachings from Kilian for reasons including to reduce material costs.
As per claim 15, Limpens further discloses wherein each internal channel for each orifice of the plurality of orifices is a straight internal channel having a uniform cross-section having a shape of the orifice (Fig. 2a) and having a length of at least 30 times the diameter of the orifice (Col. 8, Ln. 47-48—60 mm length = 40 x 1.5 mm, where 40 is greater than 30).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12110224 to Limpens et al in view of US 9909289 to Kilian in view of US 5899244 to Nish et al in view of US 3805856 to McLennand.
As per claim 16, the Limpens-Kilian combination discloses the claimed invention except for the inlet of each channel is covered by a grid. Nish teaches a nozzle comprising a plurality of channels (402) –each channel having an inlet (401) covered by a grid having openings (390; Fig. 13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Limpens-Kilian combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Nish for reasons including to filter out undesirable particulates from a flow into the nozzle. The Limpens-Kilian-Nish combination does not disclose a particular size of openings in the grid. McLennand teaches a nozzle having a grid with openings of 150 micrometers or less (Col. 1, Ln. 64-67). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the silence the Limpens-Kilian-Nish combination, to try to a grid/screen with any mesh size including 150 micrometers or less for reasons including to filter out a desired particle size.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12110224 to Limpens et al in view of US 9909289 to Kilian in view of US 6076750 to Mykkanen.
As per claim 17, the Limpens-Kilian combination discloses the claimed invention except for the nozzle comprising a converging portion. Mykkanen teaches a nozzle comprising a plurality of orifices (3) and a converging portion that converges towards the orifices of the nozzle (Fig. 1 – tapered outer surface). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Limpens-Kilian combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Mykkanen for reasons including to minimize material used and the cost and weight savings associated with a smaller nozzle.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the objections and claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 issued in the office action dated 03/06/25, the amendment filed 06/04/26 appropriately addresses all and they are withdrawn. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 contained herein are necessitated by the amendment filed 06/04/26.
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art, the remarks filed 06/04/26 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant requests withdrawal of the claim rejections by providing the following arguments:
Limpens and Kilian fail to disclose “each internal channel is inclined toward the center of the nozzle at the surface of the nozzle” because Limpens discloses a plurality of internal channels inclined away from the center of the nozzle,
In response to (A), and as set forth previously, each of Kilian and Limpens disclose the internal channels being inclined and being directed toward the center of the nozzle – i.e. “inclined toward the center of the nozzle”, as claimed. Moreover, and as set forth herein, the scope of the limitation “inclined” is ambiguous at least because it is unclear to what particular reference “inclined” pertains.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 with 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 Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights