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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first valve, second valve, the controller, the fourth channel, and the fifth channel must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 9, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “impinges on the fluid exiting the second channel” should be - - impinges on fluid exiting the second channel - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolus et al (US 20050001072 as referenced in OA dated 1/20/2026)
PNG
media_image1.png
472
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 of Bolus
Regarding claim 1, Bolus discloses a showerhead (Paragraph 0001) comprising:
a plurality of nozzle systems (Each instance of Figure 6 in Figure 5), each nozzle system including at least a first channel and a second channel (The two instances of Figure 6; 48. Paragraph 0071), wherein the first and second channels are angled such that fluid exiting the first channel impinges on fluid exiting the second channel to form a fluid output (Functional Language, the fluid exiting the first channel impinges on the fluid exiting the second channel which forms a fluid output. See Figure 2);
a first fluid path (The fluid path from a source to Annotated Figure 6; labeled first fluid input to the first channel) connecting the first channel of each of the plurality of nozzle systems with a first fluid input (Annotated Figure 6; labeled first fluid input); and
a second fluid path (The fluid path from a source to Annotated Figure 6; labeled second fluid input to the first channel) connecting the second channel of each of the plurality of nozzle systems with a second fluid input (Annotated Figure 6; labeled second fluid input).
Bolus does not disclose in Figure 6 wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separated from the second fluid input.
However, Bolus teaches wherein a first fluid input (Figure 11A; 84) of a first channel (Figure 11A; 86) is fluidically separated from the second fluid input (Figure 11A; 85) of a second channel (Figure 11A; 87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bolus in Figure 6 wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separated from the second fluid input as taught by and suggested by Bolus in Figure 11A because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Bolus’s use of fluidically separate inputs in Figure 11A according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Bolus’s showerhead which uses Figure 6, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case to be able to providing separate fluids to the channels, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the first and second fluid input fluidically separated).
Regarding claim 5, Bolus teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus further discloses wherein at least one of the first channel and the second channel is active (Functional Language, The first and second channel are active).
Regarding claim 8, Bolus teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus further discloses wherein each of the plurality of nozzle systems comprises a nozzle mouth (The mouth having Figure 5; 44), and wherein the fluid passing through each of the first channel and the second channel mix after exiting the nozzle mouth (Functional Language, the fluids mix after exiting the nozzle mouth, see Figure 6).
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leber et al (US 20070246577 as referenced in OA dated 1/20/2026) in view of Bonacci et al (US 20090314851)
Regarding claim 1, Leber discloses a showerhead (Figure 6; 400) comprising:
a plurality of nozzle systems (Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o), each nozzle system including at least a first channel (A first instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o) and a second channel (A second instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o), wherein the first and second channels are angled such that fluid (The fluid through the first channel) exiting the first channel impinges on fluid (The fluid through the second channel) exiting the second channel to form a fluid output (Figure 6; 420);
a first fluid path (The path from Figure 4A; 210a and 220a as applied to the first channel of Figure 6, Paragraph 0034 states features of different embodiments can be combined, so that each channel is fed through a fluid input through an arm) connecting the first channel of each of the plurality of nozzle systems with a first fluid input (The channel through an arm like Figure 4A; 210a as applied to the first channel of Figure 6, Paragraph 0034); and
a second fluid path (The path from Figure 4A; 210a and 220a as applied to the second channel of Figure 6Paragraph 0034 states features of different embodiments can be combined, so that each channel is fed through a fluid input through an arm) connecting the second channel of each of the plurality of nozzle systems with a second fluid input (The channel through an arm like Figure 4A; 210a as applied to the second channel of Figure 6, Paragraph 0034).
Leber does not disclose wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separated from the second fluid input.
However, Bonacci teaches wherein a first fluid input (The portion of Figure 4; 84 to the left of 92) of a first channel (Figure 4; 86) is fluidically separated (Paragraph 0039) from the second fluid input (The portion of Figure 4; 84 to the right of 92) of a second channel (Figure 4; 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Leber wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separated from the second fluid input as taught by and suggested by Bonacci in order to provide different fluids or the same fluid to each channel (Paragraph 0037, 0039, The modification uses the valve of Bonacci in Leber).
Regarding claim 4, Leber in view of Bonacci teaches the invention as claimed.
Leber further discloses wherein each of the plurality of nozzle systems further comprise a third channel (A third instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o), a fourth channel (A fourth instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o), and a fifth channel (A fifth instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o).
Claim(s) 2-3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Langlais et al (US 20020174971 as referenced in OA dated 1/20/2026).
Regarding claim 2, Bolus teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus does not disclose a first valve controlling a first flow rate of the fluid flowing through the first fluid path; and
a second valve controlling a second flow rate of the fluid flowing through the second fluid path.
However, Langlais teaches a first valve (Figure 1; 81) controlling a first flow rate of fluid (Paragraph 0050, 0053) flowing through a first fluid path (The path from Figure 1; 85 to 60); and
a second valve (Figure 1; 82) controlling a second flow rate of fluid (Paragraph 0050, 0053) flowing through a second fluid path (The path from Figure 1; 85 to 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bolus to include a first valve controlling a first flow rate of the fluid flowing through the first fluid path; and a second valve controlling a second flow rate of the fluid flowing through the second fluid path as taught by and suggested by Langlais in order to control fluid through the first and second fluid path (Paragraph 0053, The modification adds a first valve, second valve and controller).
Regarding claim 3, Bolus in view of Langlais teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus does not disclose at least one controller controlling the first and second valves to determine the first and second flow rate of the fluid from each of the first and second channels, wherein the first flow rate and second flow rate control a direction of a resulting stream of fluid.
However, Langlais teaches at least one controller (Figure 1; 92) controlling the first and second valves (Paragraph 0050, 0053) to determine the first and second flow rate of the fluid from each of the first and second channels, wherein the first flow rate and second flow rate control a direction of a resulting stream of fluid (Functional Language, the first and second flow rate control the direction of a resulting stream).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bolus to include at least one controller controlling the first and second valves to determine the first and second flow rate of the fluid from each of the first and second channels, wherein the first flow rate and second flow rate control a direction of a resulting stream of fluid as taught by and suggested by Langlais in order to control fluid through the first and second fluid path (Paragraph 0053, This is the same modification as claim 2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolus in view of Kwon et al (Fall 2020 Injector Design Guide as referenced in OA dated 1/20/2026)
Regarding claim 6, Bolus teaches the invention as claimed
Bolus does not disclose wherein an angle of the fluid output is determined based on an average of an angle of the first channel and an angle of the second channel.
However, Kwon teaches an angle (Figure 4; β) of a fluid output (The fluid having Figure 4; β) is determined based on an average (Functional Language, The equation of the Resultant Angle (beta) is
tan
(
β
)
=
q
1
v
1
sin
(
α
1
)
-
q
2
v
2
sin
(
α
2
)
q
1
v
1
cos
(
α
1
)
+
q
2
v
2
cos
(
α
2
)
Where
α
2
=
-
α
3
because
α
1
and
β
are measured in the counterclockwise direction, but
α
2
is measured in the clockwise direction in Figure 4, so that
tan
(
β
)
=
q
1
v
1
sin
(
α
1
)
-
q
2
v
2
sin
(
-
α
3
)
q
1
v
1
cos
(
α
1
)
+
q
2
v
2
cos
(
-
α
3
)
Using
sin
(
-
θ
)
=
-
s
i
n
(
θ
)
and
cos
(
-
θ
)
=
c
o
s
(
θ
)
tan
(
β
)
=
q
1
v
1
sin
(
α
1
)
+
q
2
v
2
sin
(
α
3
)
q
1
v
1
cos
(
α
1
)
+
q
2
v
2
cos
(
α
3
)
When
q
1
v
1
=
q
2
v
2
=
q
v
tan
(
β
)
=
sin
(
α
1
)
+
sin
(
α
3
)
cos
(
α
1
)
+
cos
(
α
3
)
Using
sin
x
+
sin
y
=
2
sin
x
+
y
2
c
o
s
(
x
-
y
2
)
and
cos
x
+
cos
y
=
2
cos
x
+
y
2
c
o
s
(
x
-
y
2
)
tan
(
β
)
=
2
sin
α
1
+
α
3
2
c
o
s
(
α
1
-
α
3
2
)
2
cos
α
1
+
α
3
2
c
o
s
(
α
1
-
α
3
2
)
Simplifying leads to
tan
(
β
)
=
sin
α
1
+
α
3
2
cos
α
1
+
α
3
2
=
t
a
n
α
1
+
α
3
2
Such that
β
=
α
1
+
α
3
2
,
thus the angle of the fluid output is the average of the angles of the first and second channel) of an angle of a first channel (Figure 4;
θ
f
u
e
l
of the channel having
L
f
u
e
l
)
and an angle of a second channel (Figure 4;
θ
o
x
of the channel having
L
o
x
)
.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bolus wherein an angle of the fluid output is determined based on an average of an angle of the first channel and an angle of the second channel.as taught by and suggested by Kwon in order to determine the resultant angle of two impinging streams (Resultant Angle, the modification has the angle of the fluid output determined by the average of the angles of the first and second channels)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolus in view of Martinex et al (US 3592042)
Regarding claim 7, Bolus teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus does not disclose wherein an angle of the fluid output is adjusted based on a first fluid pressure associated with the first channel and a second fluid pressure associated with the second channel.
However, Martinex teaches wherein an angle (Figure 1; α) of a fluid output (Figure 1; 18) is adjusted based on a first fluid pressure (The pressure of Figure 1; 2) associated with a first channel (Figure 1; 6) and a second fluid pressure (The pressure of Figure 1; 4) associated with the second channel (Figure 1; 12. Functional Language, Column 2, lines 22-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bolus wherein an angle of the fluid output is adjusted based on a first fluid pressure associated with the first channel and a second fluid pressure associated with the second channel as taught by and suggested by Martinex in order to determine the direction of the fluid output (Column 2, lines 22-35, The modification has the angle of the fluid output based on the first and second pressure of the first and second channel, respectively).
Claim(s) 9-10, 12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolus in view of Langlais
Regarding claim 9, Bolus discloses a showerhead (Paragraph 0001) comprising:
a plurality of nozzle systems (Each instance of Figure 6 in Figure 5), each nozzle system including at least a first channel and a second channel (The two instances of Figure 6; 48. Paragraph 0071), wherein the first and second channels are angled such that fluid exiting the first channel impinges on fluid exiting the second channel to form a fluid output (Functional Language, the fluid exiting the first channel impinges on the fluid exiting the second channel which forms a fluid output. See Figure 2);
a first fluid path (The fluid path from a source to Annotated Figure 6; labeled first fluid input to the first channel) connecting the first channel of each of the plurality of nozzle systems with a first fluid input (Annotated Figure 6; labeled first fluid input); and
a second fluid path (The fluid path from a source to Annotated Figure 6; labeled second fluid input to the first channel) connecting the second channel of each of the plurality of nozzle systems with a second fluid input (Annotated Figure 6; labeled second fluid input).
Bolus does not disclose a first valve controlling a first flow rate of the fluid flowing through the first fluid path;
a second valve controlling a second flow rate of the fluid flowing through the second fluid path;
wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separated from the second fluid input..
However, Langlais teaches a first valve (Figure 1; 81) controlling a first flow rate of fluid (Paragraph 0050, 0053) flowing through a first fluid path (The path from Figure 1; 85 to 60); and
a second valve (Figure 1; 82) controlling a second flow rate of fluid (Paragraph 0050, 0053) flowing through a second fluid path (The path from Figure 1; 85 to 61),
wherein a first fluid input (Figure 2; 54) of a first channel (Figure 2; 60) is fluidically separated (Paragraph 0042) from a second fluid input (figure 2; 55) of a second channel (Figure 2; 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bolus to include a first valve controlling a first flow rate of the fluid flowing through the first fluid path; a second valve controlling a second flow rate of the fluid flowing through the second fluid path; wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separated from the second fluid input as taught by and suggested by Langlais in order to control fluid through the first and second fluid path (Paragraph 0053, The modification adds a first valve, second valve and controller) and because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Langlais’s use of fluidically separate inputs according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Bolus’s showerhead, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case to be able to providing separate fluids to the channels, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the first and second fluid input fluidically separated).
Regarding claim 10, Bolus in view of Langlais teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus does not disclose at least one controller controlling the first and second valves to determine the first and second flow rate of the fluid from each of the first and second channels, wherein the first flow rate and second flow rate control a direction of a resulting stream of fluid.
However, Langlais teaches at least one controller (Figure 1; 92) controlling the first and second valves (Paragraph 0050, 0053) to determine the first and second flow rate of the fluid of fluid from each of the first and second channels, wherein the first flow rate and second flow rate control a direction of a resulting stream of fluid (Functional Language, the first and second flow rate control the direction of a resulting stream).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bolus to include at least one controller controlling the first and second valves to determine the first and second flow rate of the fluid from each of the first and second channels, wherein the first flow rate and second flow rate control a direction of a resulting stream of fluid as taught by and suggested by Langlais in order to control fluid through the first and second fluid path (Paragraph 0053, This is the same modification as claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, Bolus in view of Langlais teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus further discloses wherein at least one of the first channel and the second channel is active (Functional Language, The first and second channel are active).
Regarding claim 15, Bolus in view of Langlais teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus further discloses wherein each of the plurality of nozzle systems comprises a nozzle mouth (The mouth having Figure 5; 44).
Regarding claim 16, Bolus in view of Langlais teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus further discloses wherein the fluid passing through each of the first channel and the second channel mix after exiting the nozzle mouth (Functional Language, the fluids mix after exiting the nozzle mouth, see Figure 6).
Claim(s) 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leber in view of Langlais.
Regarding claim 9, Leber discloses a showerhead (Figure 6; 400) comprising:
a plurality of nozzle systems (Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o), each nozzle system including at least a first channel (A first instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o) and a second channel (A second instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o), wherein the first and second channels are angled such that fluid (The fluid through the first channel) exiting the first channel impinges on fluid (The fluid through the second channel) exiting the second channel to form a fluid output (Figure 6; 420);
a first fluid path (The path from Figure 4A; 210a and 220a as applied to the first channel of Figure 6, Paragraph 0034 states features of different embodiments can be combined, so that each channel is fed through a fluid input through an arm) connecting the first channel of each of the plurality of nozzle systems with a first fluid input (The channel through an arm like Figure 4A; 210a as applied to the first channel of Figure 6, Paragraph 0034); and
a second fluid path (The path from Figure 4A; 210a and 220a as applied to the second channel of Figure 6Paragraph 0034 states features of different embodiments can be combined, so that each channel is fed through a fluid input through an arm) connecting the second channel of each of the plurality of nozzle systems with a second fluid input (The channel through an arm like Figure 4A; 210a as applied to the second channel of Figure 6, Paragraph 0034).
Leber does not disclose a first valve controlling a first flow rate of the fluid flowing through the first fluid path; and
a second valve controlling a second flow rate of the fluid flowing through the second fluid path;
wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separated from the second fluid input.
However, Langlais teaches a first valve (Figure 1; 81) controlling a first flow rate of fluid (Paragraph 0050, 0053) flowing through a first fluid path (The path from Figure 1; 85 to 60); and
a second valve (Figure 1; 82) controlling a second flow rate of fluid (Paragraph 0050, 0053) flowing through a second fluid path (The path from Figure 1; 85 to 61),
wherein a first fluid input (Figure 2; 54) of a first channel (Figure 2; 60) is fluidically separated (Paragraph 0042) from a second fluid input (figure 2; 55) of a second channel (Figure 2; 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Leber to include a first valve controlling a first flow rate of the fluid flowing through the first fluid path; a second valve controlling a second flow rate of the fluid flowing through the second fluid path; wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separated from the second fluid input as taught by and suggested by Langlais in order to control fluid through the first and second fluid path (Paragraph 0053, The modification adds a first valve, second valve and controller) and because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Langlais’s use of fluidically separate inputs according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Bolus’s showerhead, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case to be able to providing separate fluids to the channels, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the first and second fluid input fluidically separated).
Regarding claim 11, Leber in view of Langlais teaches the invention as claimed.
Leber further discloses wherein each of the plurality of nozzle systems further comprise a third channel (A third instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o), a fourth channel (A fourth instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o), and a fifth channel (A fifth instance of a channel through each group of Figure 6; 405 a-e, 405f-j, 405k-o).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolus in view of Langlais as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kwon
Regarding claim 13, Bolus in view of Langlais teaches the invention as claimed
Bolus in view of Langlais does not teach wherein an angle of the fluid output is determined based on an average of an angle of the first channel and an angle of the second channel.
However, Kwon teaches an angle (Figure 4; β) of a fluid output (The fluid having Figure 4; β) is determined based on an average (Functional Language, The equation of the Resultant Angle (beta) is
tan
(
β
)
=
q
1
v
1
sin
(
α
1
)
-
q
2
v
2
sin
(
α
2
)
q
1
v
1
cos
(
α
1
)
+
q
2
v
2
cos
(
α
2
)
Where
α
2
=
-
α
3
because
α
1
and
β
are measured in the counterclockwise direction, but
α
2
is measured in the clockwise direction in Figure 4, so that
tan
(
β
)
=
q
1
v
1
sin
(
α
1
)
-
q
2
v
2
sin
(
-
α
3
)
q
1
v
1
cos
(
α
1
)
+
q
2
v
2
cos
(
-
α
3
)
Using
sin
(
-
θ
)
=
-
s
i
n
(
θ
)
and
cos
(
-
θ
)
=
c
o
s
(
θ
)
tan
(
β
)
=
q
1
v
1
sin
(
α
1
)
+
q
2
v
2
sin
(
α
3
)
q
1
v
1
cos
(
α
1
)
+
q
2
v
2
cos
(
α
3
)
When
q
1
v
1
=
q
2
v
2
=
q
v
tan
(
β
)
=
sin
(
α
1
)
+
sin
(
α
3
)
cos
(
α
1
)
+
cos
(
α
3
)
Using
sin
x
+
sin
y
=
2
sin
x
+
y
2
c
o
s
(
x
-
y
2
)
and
cos
x
+
cos
y
=
2
cos
x
+
y
2
c
o
s
(
x
-
y
2
)
tan
(
β
)
=
2
sin
α
1
+
α
3
2
c
o
s
(
α
1
-
α
3
2
)
2
cos
α
1
+
α
3
2
c
o
s
(
α
1
-
α
3
2
)
Simplifying leads to
tan
(
β
)
=
sin
α
1
+
α
3
2
cos
α
1
+
α
3
2
=
t
a
n
α
1
+
α
3
2
Such that
β
=
α
1
+
α
3
2
,
thus the angle of the fluid output is the average of the angles of the first and second channel) of an angle of a first channel (Figure 4;
θ
f
u
e
l
of the channel having
L
f
u
e
l
)
and an angle of a second channel (Figure 4;
θ
o
x
of the channel having
L
o
x
)
.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bolus in view of Langlais wherein an angle of the fluid output is determined based on an average of an angle of the first channel and an angle of the second channel.as taught by and suggested by Kwon in order to determine the resultant angle of two impinging streams (Resultant Angle, the modification has the angle of the fluid output determined by the average of the angles of the first and second channels)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolus in view of Langlais as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Martinex
Regarding claim 14, Bolus in view of Langlais teaches the invention as claimed.
Bolus in view of Langlais does not teach wherein an angle of the fluid output is adjusted based on a first fluid pressure associated with the first channel and a second fluid pressure associated with the second channel.
However, Martinex teaches wherein an angle (Figure 1; α) of a fluid output (Figure 1; 18) is adjusted based on a first fluid pressure (The pressure of Figure 1; 2) associated with a first channel (Figure 1; 6) and a second fluid pressure (The pressure of Figure 1; 4) associated with the second channel (Figure 1; 12. Functional Language, Column 2, lines 22-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bolus in view of Langlais wherein an angle of the fluid output is adjusted based on a first fluid pressure associated with the first channel and a second fluid pressure associated with the second channel as taught by and suggested by Martinex in order to determine the direction of the fluid output (Column 2, lines 22-35, The modification has the angle of the fluid output based on the first and second pressure of the first and second channel, respectively).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the first valve, second valve, and controller are not needed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 37 CFR 1.83(a) states “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims”, so that every feature of the invention specified in the claims must be shown.
Applicant asserts that Bolus and Langlais do not teach wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separate from the second fluid input. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above in this OA, Bolus and Langlais teach wherein the first fluid input is fluidically separate from the second fluid input.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Leber applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights