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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-24, 29-31, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bendig et al (US 4989788).
Regarding claim 16, Bendig discloses a nozzle (Figure 2) comprising:
an elongate body (The body of Figure 2) having a first portion (Figure 1; 17 as shown in Figure 2) defining a first axis (The central axis of Figure 1; 17 as shown in Figure 2) and a second portion (Figure 2; 44, 45, 23) defining a second axis (Figure 2; 33), the first and second axes being non-parallel;
a pre-orifice regulator (Figure 2; 29) positioned in the first portion and having a pre-orifice opening (The central bore of Figure 2; 29 and 31, 32) configured to regulate fluid flow (Functional Language, 29 is a metering insert and as such meters or regulates fluid flow through it);
a nozzle terminal (Figure 2; 22) positioned in the second portion, the nozzle terminal defining a spray opening (Figure 2; 28); and
a diffuser (Figure 2; 43. Column 3, lines 1-6 describes deflecting the flow and forming a large jet, so that 43 is a diffuser) coupled to the nozzle terminal, the diffuser defining a diffusion opening (Figure 2; 42), wherein the diffuser is positioned within the elongate body between the pre-orifice regulator and the spray opening.
Regarding claim 17, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein a cross-sectional area (The cross-sectional area of Figure 2; 31, 32) of the diffusion opening is larger than a cross-sectional area of the pre-orifice opening (The cross-sectional area of Figure 2; 42).
Regarding claim 19, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein the second axis extends through the spray opening, and the diffusion opening extends perpendicular to the second axis (Figure 2; 42 extends to the right from the leftmost part of 42 which is perpendicular to the second axis).
Regarding claim 20, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein the first axis extends through the pre-orifice opening (The first axis extends through the central bore of Figure 2; 29 which is part of the pre-orifice opening).
Regarding claim 21, Bendig discloses a nozzle (Figure 2), comprising:
an elongate body (Figure 2; 10, 44, 45, 23 and Figure 1; 17 as shown in Figure 2) including a first passageway (The central passage through Figure 1; 17 as shown in Figure 2);
a pre-orifice regulator (Figure 2; 29) having a pre-orifice opening (The central bore of Figure 2; 29 and 31, 32) configured to regulate fluid flow (Functional Language, 29 is a metering insert and as such meters or regulates fluid flow through it), the pre-orifice regulator being coupled to a first end (Figure 2; 10) of the elongate body and defining a first axis (The central axis of Figure 2; 29); and
a nozzle outlet subassembly (The assembly of components within Figure 2; 23) disposed at least partially within the first passageway, the nozzle outlet subassembly including a nozzle terminal (Figure 2; 22) and a diffuser (Figure 2; 43. Column 3, lines 1-6 describes deflecting the flow and forming a large jet, so that 43 is a diffuser), the nozzle terminal defining a second passageway (The central passage through the nozzle outlet subassembly) and a spray opening (Figure 2; 28), the second passageway defining a second axis (The central axis through the second passageway)
wherein the first axis is non-parallel to the second axis, and
the diffuser defines a diffusion opening (Figure 2; 42) that is proximate the spray opening.
Regarding claim 22, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein the diffuser comprises a plate (The horizontal portion of Figure 2; 43 is ap late) with the diffusion opening extending through the plate, and a surface (The bottom surface of the plate is perpendicular to the second axis) of the plate is positioned perpendicular to the second axis.
Regarding claim 23, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein the diffusion opening extends through the plate parallel to the second axis (Figure 2; 42 extends downwards from the top surface which is parallel to the second axis).
Regarding claim 24, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein the diffuser comprises an extender (The vertical portion of Figure 2; 43) that extends axially from the plate, and the diffuser is positioned in the nozzle outlet subassembly such that the extender extends away from the nozzle terminal.
Regarding claim 29, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein the surface of the plate is seated into the nozzle terminal to orient the diffusion opening relative to the spray opening (Functional Language, the bottom surface of Figure 2; 43 seats into 22 and orients the diffusion opening relative to the spray opening).
Regarding claim 30, Bendig discloses a nozzle (Figure 2) comprising:
an elongate body (Figure 2; 10, 44, 45, 23 and Figure 1; 17 as shown in Figure 2) including a first passageway (The central passage through Figure 1; 17 as shown in Figure 2) defining a first axis (The central axis of Figure 1; 17 as shown in Figure 2), a first end (Figure 2; 10), and a second end b(Figure 2; 23);
a pre-orifice regulator (Figure 2; 29) having a pre-orifice opening (The central bore of Figure 2; 29 and 31, 32) configured to regulate fluid flow (Functional Language, 29 is a metering insert and as such meters or regulates fluid flow through it), the pre-orifice regulator being coupled to the first end of the elongate body; and
a nozzle outlet (Figure 2; 43, 22) configured to be coupled to the second end of the elongate body, the nozzle outlet including
a nozzle terminal (Figure 2; 22) defining a spray opening (Figure 2; 28) and a second axis (The central axis through Figure 2; 22) extending through the spray opening, the second axis being non-parallel with the first axis, and
a diffuser (Figure 2; 43) provided in the form of a plate (The horizontal portion of Figure 2; 43 is a plate), wherein a diffusion opening (Figure 2; 42) extends through the plate and parallel to the second axis (Figure 2; 42 extends downwards from the top surface of the plate, so that 42 extends parallel to the second axis).
Regarding claim 31, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein a surface (The top surface of the plate) of the plate is positioned perpendicular to the second axis (The top surface is perpendicular to the second axis).
Regarding claim 33, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein the diffuser includes a flat side (The bottom surface of the plate) and the flat side mates with the nozzle terminal to orient the diffusion opening relative to the spray opening (Functional Language, the bottom surface of Figure 2; 43 seats into 22 and orients the diffusion opening relative to the spray opening).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig in view of Swan et al (US 20110095104 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026).
Regarding claim 18, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig does not disclose wherein the nozzle terminal includes a bayonet lobe that mates with the elongate body to align the spray opening relative to the elongate body.
However, Swan teaches wherein a nozzle terminal (Figure 4A; 12, 14) includes a bayonet lobe (The protrusions defining Figure 2; 20 as applied to Figure 4A. Paragraph 0026) that mates with an elongate body (Figure 4A; 28) to align a spray opening (The opening in Figure 2A; 14) relative to the elongate body (Paragraph 0026, 0027).
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 Bendig wherein the nozzle terminal includes a bayonet lobe that mates with the elongate body to align the spray opening relative to the elongate body as taught by and suggested by Swan in order to prevent unintentional disengagement (Paragraph 0004, the modification adds a bayonet mechanism to Bendig).
Claim(s) 25, 27, 32, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig in view of Koveal et al (US 6199768).
Regarding claim 25, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig does not disclose wherein the diffusion opening is one of a plurality of diffusion openings defined in the diffuser, the plurality of diffusion openings being disposed about the second axis.
However, Koveal teaches wherein a diffusion opening (Figure 3(c); 116) is one of a plurality of diffusion openings (Figure 3(c); 116, 116’) defined in a diffuser (Figure 3(c); 102), the plurality of diffusion openings being disposed about a second axis (The longitudinal central axis of Figure 3(c); 102).
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 Bendig wherein the diffusion opening is one of a plurality of diffusion openings defined in the diffuser, the plurality of diffusion openings being disposed about the second axis as taught by and suggested by Koveal in order to provide smaller liquid droplets (Column 11-12, lines 53-19, The modification has the diffuser having a plurality of openings).
Regarding claim 27, Bendig in view of Koveal teaches the invention as claimed.
Bendig does not disclose wherein one or more of the plurality of diffusion openings is radially offset from the second axis.
However, Koveal teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of diffusion openings is radially offset from the second axis.
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 Bendig wherein one or more of the plurality of diffusion openings is radially offset from the second axis as taught by and suggested by Koveal in order to provide smaller liquid droplets (Column 11-12, lines 53-19, This is the same modification as claim 25).
Regarding claim 32, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig does not disclose wherein the diffusion opening is one of a plurality of diffusion openings aligned along the surface of the plate, and
the diffusion opening extends substantially parallel to the spray opening.
However, Koveal teaches wherein a diffusion opening (Figure 3(c); 116) is one of a plurality of diffusion openings (Figure 3(c); 116, 116’) aligned along a surface of a plate (The surface of Figure 3(b); 118), and
the diffusion opening extends substantially parallel to a spray opening (Figure 3(b); 128 Both 116 and 128 extends to the right in Figure 3(b)).
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 Bendig wherein the diffusion opening is one of a plurality of diffusion openings aligned along the surface of the plate, and the diffusion opening extends substantially parallel to the spray opening as taught by and suggested by Koveal in order to provide smaller liquid droplets (Column 11-12, lines 53-19, The modification has the diffuser having a plurality of openings that do not overlap the spray opening).
Regarding claim 34, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig does not disclose wherein when the nozzle outlet is viewed from a perspective that is normal to the surface of the plate, an outer circumference of the diffusion opening does not overlap with an outer circumference of the spray opening.
However, Koveal teaches wherein when a nozzle outlet (Figure 3(c); 102) is viewed from a perspective (The perspective in Figure 3(c)) that is normal to the surface of a plate (Figure 3(b); 118), an outer circumference (The circumference of Figure 3(c); 116, 116’) of a diffusion opening (Figure 3(c); 116) does not overlap with an outer circumference (The circumference of Figure 3(c); 128) of the spray opening.
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 Bendig wherein when the nozzle outlet is viewed from a perspective that is normal to the surface of the plate, an outer circumference of the diffusion opening does not overlap with an outer circumference of the spray opening as taught by and suggested by Koveal in order to provide smaller liquid droplets (Column 11-12, lines 53-19, The modification has the diffuser having a plurality of openings that do not overlap the spray opening).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig in view of Koveal as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Binter et al (US 4128206).
Regarding claim 26, Bendig in view of Koveal teaches the invention as claimed.
Bendig does not disclose wherein one or more of the plurality of diffusion openings has a cross-section that is one of crescent-shaped, semi-circular, or circular.
However, Koveal teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of diffusion openings has a cross-section (The cross-section of Figure 3(c); 116, 116’)
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 Bendig wherein one or more of the plurality of diffusion openings has a cross-section as taught by and suggested by Koveal in order to provide smaller liquid droplets (Column 11-12, lines 53-19, This is the same modification as claim 25).
Bendig in view of Koveal does not teach wherein the cross-section is one of crescent-shaped, semi-circular, or circular.
However, Binter teaches one or more of a plurality of diffusion openings (Figure 4; 104) has a cross-section that is one of crescent-shaped, semi-circular, or circular (Figure 4; 104 is circular).
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 Bendig in view of Koveal wherein the cross-section is one of crescent-shaped, semi-circular, or circular as taught by and suggested by Binter because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Binter’s use of a circular diffusion openings according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Bendig in view of Koveal’s nozzle, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case diffusing a fluid flow, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification makes the diffusion openings circular).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig in view of Neilbrook et al (US 5862985 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026).
Regarding claim 28, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig does not disclose wherein the diffuser includes a lobe region extending radially from a central region, and the lobe region and the central region define a shoulder.
However, Neilbrook teaches wherein a diffuser (Figure 3A; 70) includes a lobe region (Figure 3A; 99) extending radially from a central region (The central region of from which Figure 3A; 99 extends from), and the lobe region and the central region define a shoulder (The shoulder defined by the lobe and shoulder regions).
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 Bendig wherein the diffuser includes a lobe region extending radially from a central region, and the lobe region and the central region define a shoulder as taught by and suggested by Swan in order to provide the diffuser at a specific angular orientation and prevent rotation (Column 6, lines 65-67, The modification adds an alignment mechanism).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig in view of Eboigbodin et al (US 20210252534 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026)
Regarding claim 35, Bendig discloses the invention as claimed.
Bendig further discloses wherein the diffusion opening has a circular cross- section (The circular cross-section of the diffusion opening) with a diameter (The diameter of the diffusion opening).
Bendig does not disclose wherein the diameter equal to or less than 2mm.
However, Eboigbodin teaches a diffusion opening (Figure 7; 162) has a circular cross- section (The circular cross-section of Figure 7; 162) with a diameter (The diameter of Figure 7; 162) and
teaches in Paragraph 0059 that a diameter is a results-effective variables that controls pressure drop. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the diameter are result-effective variables that controls pressure drop. Thus, the claimed limitation of the diameter equal to or less than 2mm is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the diffusion opening of Bendig to have the specified diameter size, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of the diameter of Bendig disclosed to require adjustment.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
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 Bendig wherein the diameter equal to or less than 2mm in order to optimize pressure drop (The modification has the diameter being 2 mm or less).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16, 21, 30 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
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