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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: in claim 4 for “first arm” and “second arm”.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
There is a lack of antecedent basis for:
“the circumference“ in claims 2 and 4.
A double inclusion limitation appears for the following terms that has been cited previously:
In claim 2, line 4; claim 4, lines 14-15 and 19, for "fluid".
The term “sufficient” in claims 1 and 4 does not provide proper metes and bounds to the scope of the claim.
In claim 4, the term “its” may not properly refer to the intended limitation.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 200256304 Y1) in view of Han (CN 1214829 C) and in view of Topacio (US 2010/0219627).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a fill nozzle (110 fig.1-3) comprising: an angled tube having a first end and a second end (see fig.3); wherein the angled tube is comprised of one tube having a bend at approximately a center of the angled tube to define a first straight portion extending from the first end to the bend and a second straight portion extending from the bend to the second end (see the bend of 111 in fig.3), and a coupler (see the couplers on 111 connected to 120); a valve (120) connected to the first end of the angled tube via the coupler (see fig.1-3); the coupler comprising a plurality of outwardly extending tabs configured to facilitate grasping and rotating the coupler for attachment and detachment of the valve under high-pressure conditions (see tabs on the couplers and see attached translation, page 3, ll.23-27); a fire hose connection (112) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the fire hose connection is configured to connect to a fire hose, and the second end of the fire hose connection is connected to the valve (see attached translation, page 3, ll.34-37); and wherein the second end of the angled tube comprises an open spray end (113).
Lee is silent in disclosing each of the first straight portion and the second straight portion has a length of at least 24 inches; the bend positions the second end in a position sufficient to allow the second end to be inserted into a water tank of a vehicle while a user stands on the ground; and the second end of the angled tube comprises an open spray end configured to expel fluid into the water tank. Regarding each of the first straight portion and the second straight portion has a length of at least 24 inches, Han teaches a typical pore tube of a fire nozzle has a length from 140 to 280,500 mm, which is approximately half the length of the fire nozzle as shown in fig.1. Therefore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider each of the first straight portion and the second straight portion to have a length of at least 24 inches, since Applicant has neither placed criticality on use of such a tube size nor has disclosed that such a tube size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than being able to hold the nozzle while spraying in a particular direction in which the device of Lee and Han in combination performs the same function of discharging water at an angle. Further, it appears that the only difference between the prior art to Lee and claim 1 is a recitation of relative dimensions in which the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere alteration to the size of the tube of Lee which fails to patentably distinguish over the cited prior arts. Further, Topacio teaches the commonality of a fire fighter volunteer to fill a tank of a fire truck from a fire hydrant (see fig.1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to make a use of the nozzle of Lee in filling a water tank of a fire truck as taught by Topacio, in order to be ready to use the water in case of fire emergency.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the second end of the angled tube further comprises a plurality of apertures (113 includes plurality of apertures, see page 3, ll. 28-31) configured to expel the fluid.
Lee and Topacio in combination are silent in disclosing each aperture of the plurality of apertures extends through a wall of the angled tube and is oriented to expel fluid in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the angled tube, and wherein the plurality of apertures is radially arranged around the circumference of the angled tube adjacent to the open spray end. However, Han teaches the commonality of having a plurality of apertures in direction of perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the open end of the nozzle (see 5, fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the open end of the nozzle of Lee and Topacio in combination as such to include a plurality of apertures perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tube as taught by Han, in order to effectively spray a larger area in case of a fire emergency.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses Lee discloses a fill nozzle (110 fig.1-3) comprising:
a single continuous length of tubing having a bend at approximately its center to define a first arm and a second arm (see fig.3), and wherein one end of the second arm comprises an open spray end configured to expel fluid along a longitudinal axis of the second arm (via 113); a coupler attached to the first arm, the coupler comprising a plurality of outwardly extending tabs (see coupler with tabs on 111 by 120); a valve (120) connected to the first arm via the coupler (see fig.1-3), the valve movable
between an open position permitting fluid flow through the tubing and a closed
position preventing fluid flow; a fire hose connection connected to the valve and configured to receive a standard fire hose (see attached translation, page 3, ll.34-37); and a plurality of apertures (113 includes plurality of apertures, see page 3, ll. 28-31),
Lee is silent in disclosing the bend positions the second arm at a position sufficient to allow the second arm to be inserted into an open top of a water tank while a user holds the first arm; each of the first arm and the second arm has a length of approximately 24 to 26 inches; and each aperture of the plurality of apertures extends through a wall of the tubing at the open spray end and is oriented to expel fluid in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the second arm, and wherein the plurality of apertures is radially arranged around the circumference of the
tubing adjacent to the open spray end. Regarding each of the first arm and the second arm has a length of approximately 24 to 26 inches, Han teaches a typical pore tube of a fire nozzle has a length from 140 to 280,500 mm, which is approximately half the length of the fire nozzle as shown in fig.1. Therefore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider each of the first and the second arms to have a length of approximately 24 to 26 inches, since Applicant has neither placed criticality on use of such a tube size nor has disclosed that such a tube size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than being able to hold the nozzle while spraying the fluid in which the device of Lee and Han in combination performs the same function of discharging water at an angle. Further, it appears that the only difference between the prior art to Lee and claim 1 is a recitation of relative dimensions in which the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere alteration to the size of the tube of Lee which fails to patentably distinguish over the cited prior art. Further, Topacio teaches the commonality of a fire fighter volunteer to fill a tank of a fire truck from a fire hydrant (see fig.1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to make a use of the nozzle of Lee in filling a water tank of a fire truck as taught by Topacio, in order to be ready to use the water in case of fire emergency. Also, Han teaches the commonality of having a plurality of apertures in direction of perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the open end of the nozzle (see 5, fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the open end of the nozzle of Lee as such to include a plurality of apertures perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tube as taught by Han, in order to effectively spray a larger area in case of a fire emergency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 200256304 Y1) in view of Han (CN 1214829 C) and in view of Topacio (US 2010/0219627) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gunter (US 2006/0060668)
Regarding claim 3, Lee, Han and Topacio in combination disclose an angled tube at a position adjacent to both the valve and the coupler (see fig.1-3 of Lee) and filling a water tank (see Topacio, fig.1-2)
Lee, Han and Topacio in combination are silent in disclosing a handle attached to the first end of the angled tube at a position adjacent to both the valve and the coupler, the handle oriented to provide a handgrip enabling the user to support and operate the fill nozzle while standing on the ground and directing the second end of the angled tube into the water tank. However, Gunter teaches the commonality of having a handle (7) attached to the first end of the tube at a position adjacent to both the valve (104) and the coupler. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add a handle as taught by Gunter to the nozzle of Lee, Han and Topacio in combination, in order to effectively handle the nozzle in case of a fire emergency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights