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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (5251823) in view of Zarbi (6334579) and Manda (11534728).
Regarding claim 1, Joshi discloses A spray nozzle (30, fig 1) comprising: a first flow channel (13, fig 1) providing a flow path between a first inlet (12, fig 1) and a first outlet (20, fig 2), the first flow channel being delimited by an inner casing (10, fig 1), and a second flow channel (25, fig 1) providing a flow path between a second inlet (27, fig 1) and a second outlet (18, fig 2) surrounding the first outlet, the second flow channel being delimited by an outer casing (11, fig 1), wherein the first outlet comprises a plurality of first outlet openings (21, fig 2), the first outlet openings being separated by first slats (blocked areas between openings 21, fig 2) extending helically (fig 2, they circle around the centerline forming a helical shape) at least a part of the distance between the first inlet and the first outlet, wherein the second outlet comprises a plurality of second outlet openings (outlets of 24, fig 3), the second outlet openings being separated by second slats (25, fig 3) extending helically at least a part of the distance between the second inlet and the second outlet, the inner casing extends further from the first inlet than the first slats (16, fig 3), the outer casing extends further from the second inlet than the second slats (18, fig 3), the first and second outlet have an annular shape (the exits are both annular, fig 3), and the first flow channel is provided with a throttle member (17, fig 3) extending from the middle of the first outlet to at least a part of the distance between the first inlet and the first outlet.
Joshi does not disclose wherein the second flow channel comprises a plurality of helical sections for bringing a fluid flow arriving at the second flow channel to a cyclonic motion before its arrival at a channel section provided with the second slats, the throttle member having a conical shape widening towards the first outlet.
Zarbi teaches a spray nozzle (10, fig 2) comprising: a first flow channel (50, fig 3) providing a flow path (70, fig 4a) between a first inlet (20, fig 2) and a first outlet (52, fig 4), the first flow channel being delimited by an inner casing (12, fig 2), and a second flow channel (40, fig 3) providing a flow path (60, fig 2) between a second inlet (51, fig 3) and a second outlet (60, fig 2) surrounding the first outlet, the second flow channel being delimited by an outer casing (11, fig 2), the second outlet comprises a plurality of second outlet openings (60, fig 2), the second outlet openings being separated by second slats (solid portions 25 between channels 40, fig 3) extending helically at least a part of the distance between the second inlet and the second outlet, and the second flow channel comprises a plurality of helical sections (40 between structures 31, fig 3) for bringing a fluid flow (air from 51) arriving to the second flow channel to a cyclonic motion (the helical shape will lead the flow into said cyclonic motion before being exhausted, fig 2) before its arrival to a channel section (between 25 and 35, fig 3 and 5) provided with the second slats.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second flow channel disclosed by Joshi by having a plurality of helical flow sections upstream of the plurality of flow channels based on the teachings of Zarbi. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this shift of having a previously rotating flow interacting with a swirler would provide an increase in turbulence and thus the potential for mixing with a fluid flow over a single swirler mechanism.
Manda teaches a nozzle with an inner and outer flow passage, the inner flow passage having a throttle member (annotated fig 14) extending from the middle of the first outlet (it goes through the middle of the outlet as its on centerline 208, fig 14) to at least a part of the distance between the first inlet and the first outlet (fig 14, it extends into the flow channel between the inlet and outlet, the throttle having a conical shape widening towards the first outlet (fig 14, the throttle member is wider at the outlet end than the inlet end).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the throttle member disclosed by Joshi by having a conical throttle member widening towards the first outlet based on the teachings of Manda. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the throttle member being conical would cause the flow to be squeezed outwards, creating additional mixing by the addition of a radial flow component along with shearing between multiple layers of flow.
Regarding claim 2, Joshi discloses wherein the number of the first outlet openings comprised in the first outlet is different from the number of the second outlet openings comprised in the second outlet (fig 3, there are a lot more flow passages 24 than there are flow passages 21).
Regarding claim 4, Joshi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the inner casing, the outer casing, and the first slats are formed into a single body having an integral structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the inner casing, the outer casing, and the first slats be formed into a single body having an integral structure, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 6, Joshi discloses wherein the second flow channel surrounds the first flow channel and has a conical outer shape (second flow channel tapers inwardly towards the outlet 18, fig 2) tapering towards the second outlet in the proximity of the second outlet.
Regarding claim 7, Joshi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each side wall of the first flow channel and the second flow channel is formed to a single body having an integral structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have each side wall of the first flow channel and the second flow channel be formed of a single body having an integral structure, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 8, Joshi discloses wherein the spray nozzle is provided with a flange (flange near number 24 extending radially outwardly from the outer casing, fig 3) extending outwards from the outer casing, wherein the flange and the outer casing are formed into a single body having an integral structure (the flange and the outer body are a single cohesive part in the drawing, fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, Joshi as modified by Zarbi in claim 1 discloses wherein the second inlet comprises a plurality of second inlet openings (upstream side of channels 40, fig 3, Zarbi) opening tangentially around the inner casing at each of the helical sections.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein the spray nozzle is manufactured using an additive manufacturing method” this is considered a product–by-process limitation due to it referencing the method as to which the spray nozzle is made. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference (see MPEP 2113). As set forth in the rejection, Joshi is substantially the same product as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 2-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under Manda and under Zarbi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Joshi as modified by Manda and Zarbi
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 SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights