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 . Claims 1, 2, and 4 of the amended claim set received 3/12/2026 are pending. Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the touch of the hand” should be written “a touch of a hand”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the reference line and the calibration line are both concave portions” while base claim 1 recites “wherein the reference line and the calibration line are both concave V-shaped grooves.” The claim 2 recitation is repetitive and should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, and 4 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 1 recites “a polygonal shape” in line 15 after recitation of “a polygonal shape” in line 8. It is unclear if the two polygonal shapes correspond to each other. The recitation of line 15 is examined as if written “the polygonal shape”.
Claim 1 recites “the spray holes are provided with the same number of the calibration plane and the reference plane so that each of the calibration planes can be aligned with one of the spray holes” at lines 18-20. “the calibration plane” and “the reference plane” have no antecedent basis given that no singular calibration plane or reference plane has been introduced prior to the recitation. Additionally, looking at the invention as shown in Fig. 1, each calibration plane 22 is aligned with a respective spray hole 21 as opposed to the claimed “each of the calibration planes can be aligned with one of the spray holes” which conveys that multiple calibration planes can be aligned with the same spray hole. Given the spray holes 21 are fixed with respect to the calibration planes 22, only one calibration plane can be aligned with a specified spray hole. The recitation is examined as if written, “there is an equal number of the calibration planes and the reference planes, each of the calibration planes is aligned with a respective one of the spray holes”.
Claim 1 recites “to align any of the calibration plane through a reference plane during use to identify whether the spray hole is accurately connected to the flow channel.” “the calibration plane” and “the spray hole” have no antecedent basis. The disclosed invention does not include a calibration plane aligned “through” a reference plane”. The recitation is examined as if written, “to align any one of the calibration planes [[through]] with one of the [[a]] reference planes during use to identify whether the respective spray hole is accurately connected to the flow channel”.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the reference line and the calibration line are both concave V-shaped grooves.” “the reference line” and “the calibration line” have no antecedent basis. The recitation is examined as if written “wherein the reference lines and the calibration lines are all concave V-shaped grooves.”
Claim 2 recites “so that the concave portions can increase a coverage range of the reference line and the calibration line” where it is unclear what structure is required to provide this function, i.e. how is the invention of claim 1 modified.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or reasonably make obvious the following in combination with the other independent claim limitations -
Regarding Claim 1, “wherein the reference line and the calibration line are both concave V- shaped grooves,” the claim as interpreted in the associated §112(b) rejections above.
Claims 2 and 4 are allowable at least by basis on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/12/2026, with respect to a potential prior art rejection of amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §102 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/R.D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights