DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The specification appears to indicate that Figure 1 shows prior art. If this is the case, Figure 1, is required to include the “Prior Art” legend pursuant to MPEP § 608.02(g). A proposed drawing correction, or clarification of the specification is required in response to this action.
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a new drawing(s) to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
The two embodiments of claim(s) 1, line(s) 3 & 9, “or” have not been depicted.
The examiner suggests deleting these reference(s).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-12 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.
With regard to claim(s) 1, line(s) 15, “at least indirectly” is open to interpretation and indefinite. In line(s) 19, “inflow end” lack(s) antecedent basis. Also, “almost the same size” is indefinite. The examiner suggests providing antecedent dimensions; length, diameter, etc.
With regard to claim(s) 1 & 2, “at least almost” is open to interpretation and indefinite. Further, it appears to attempt to define a bound but is unclear if that is an upper or lower bound.
With regard to claim(s) 3, this claim(s) is simply not understood; and at a minimum has antecedent basis issues. Also, “almost the same size” is indefinite.
With further regard to claim(s) 6, “jet pump” lack(s) antecedent basis, and so accordingly does “jet pump pressure”.
With regard to claim(s) 10, “outflow end” lack(s) antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-2 & 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (9,368,806) in view of Koyama et al. (10,541,432).
Noh et al. (9,368,806) disclose(s):
Fuel cell 170;
conveyor 120, 140 A & B;
injection module, figure(s) 1;
hydrogen feed, abstract;
dosing valve 160;
inlet(s) opening 21;
small nozzle body 18;
large nozzle body 16;
second drive nozzle, converging section of 18;
stop disc, seat of 15 contacting 22;
outflow end closing pressure surface, left most perpendicular surfaces of 18 as seen in figure(s) 2.
Note Noh et al. (9,368,806) disclose(s) an arrangement such that of simultaneous flow of or inner flow only.
Noh et al. (9,368,806) lack(s) a first drive nozzle. Koyama et al. (10,541,432) teach(es) a first drive nozzle 114 in an injection module of a fuel cell conveyor.
Further, it has generally been recognized that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as the binary choice of providing a converging nozzle tip), with a reasonable expectation of success involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Finally, the first drive nozzle of the small nozzle body could only be of a diameter of less, equal or greater relative to the nozzle body. It has been held to be obvious in choosing among such relational domains. 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301 and In re leshin, 227 f.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Be advised, this is an entirely “as best understood” rejection.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noh et al. (9,368,806) to provide/substitute a first drive nozzle in order to increase efficiency as taught by Koyama et al. (10,541,432).
With regard to claim(s) 2, Noh et al. (9,368,806) disclose(s) a small nozzle body with parallel surfaces.
Conclusion
Be advised, the applicant is not to take failure by the examiner to apply a prior art rejection as an indication of allowable subject matter.
The examiner invites the applicant to telephone upon review of this Office Action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The bulk of the prior art in which a nozzle body axially oscillates are primarily employing magnetic prime movers.
Richter (2023/0204050) employs a rotating inner nozzle body.
Yamagishi et al. (2007/0163649) has gas actuated axial movement with spring dampening, but no inner or small nozzle body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights