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 Status
Pending claims 1-14 are addressed below.
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 1-14 are 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 “the direction of flow” in line 6-7, “the outlet-side end” in line 9, “the radial and in the axial direction” in line 9-10, “the cross-sectional area of the outlet of the inner flow channel” and “the cross-sectional area of the nozzle outlet” in lines 10-11, “the outer surface” in line 13, “the inner surface” in line 15-16, all of which lack proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the inclination”, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the tangent” and “the plane” , which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the end” and “the cone angle”, which lack proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Other claim(s) listed in the rejection title is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency upon the rejected base claim.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt (US 3401883) in view of Hamaura (US20200147624).
Regarding claim 1, Gebhardt discloses an atomizer nozzle (fig. 1) for atomizing (col. 3, ln 43) a first fluid by means of a second fluid, comprising
a nozzle body (10) and a nozzle head (13),
the atomizer nozzle having an inner flow channel (channel inside 10, and 11) arranged in the nozzle body with an inlet (upstream opening of 10) and an outlet (downstream opening of 10) for the first fluid (paint; col. 2, ln 50) to be atomized (via channel inside 10), and an outer flow channel (15 and 16) arranged around the inner flow channel with an inlet (opening upstream of 15) and an outlet (annular gap 12) for the second fluid (compressed air; col. 2, ln 47-48),
PNG
media_image1.png
459
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the nozzle head having a nozzle outlet (downstream opening of 13) for the atomized fluid and being placed on the outlet-side end (where annular gap 12 is formed) of the nozzle body (10) and partially surrounding it in the radial and in the axial direction (see fig. 1), and the cross-sectional area of the outlet of the inner flow channel (cross sectional area at 11; fig. 1) being smaller than the cross-sectional area of the nozzle outlet (cross sectional area at outlet of 13), characterized in that the nozzle head is designed as a sleeve-shaped cap (13 is sleeved around nozzle body 10; see fig. 1) attached to a part of the outer surface of the nozzle body (outer surface of flange 14), and that the outer flow channel comprises two sections (15 and 16), a first section (15) extending completely in the nozzle body, and a second section (16) being formed by the outer surface (see annotation) of the nozzle body and the inner surface (see annotation) of the nozzle head.
Gebhardt does not teach the outlet of the inner flow channel ending before the outlet of the outer flow channel in the direction of flow (fig. 1 of Gebhardt shows outlet 11 and outlet 12 ending at the same axial point).
However, Hamaura discloses a comparable atomizer nozzle (fig. 1) having outlet 1g of the inner flow channel ending before the outlet 2e/2c of the outer flow channel in the direction of flow (from right to left; see figs. 1-2; par. 43: “The liquid outlet 1 g is located on an upstream side of this mixed gas outlet 2 c.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gebhardt to incorporate the teachings of Hamaura to provide the outlet of the inner flow channel ending before the outlet of the outer flow channel in the direction of flow. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating internal mixing of the fluid and gas to promote atomization and reduce deposition of solidified liquid (See Paragraphs 18 and 58).
Regarding claim 2, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 1, wherein Gebhardt discloses the outer flow channel comprises baffles (angled walls of flange 14 forming the holes 15) extending in axial direction (axial extension of flange walls where holes 15 are defined) over at least a partial area of the outer flow channel and in radial direction (radial extension of flange 14 where holes 15 are defined) from the inner wall to the outer wall of the outer flow channel (wall portions of flange 14 that defines the holes 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
244
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 2, wherein Gebhardt discloses the baffles (walls forming holes 15 have “a slight inclination”, understood to result in helically shaped baffles as multiple holes are provided around the axis; see figs. 1 and 2a) are helically shaped in the direction of flow so that they form a swirl region in the outer flow channel (col. 3, ln 16-29).
Regarding claim 5, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 2, wherein the baffles are integrally connected to the inner wall and the outer wall of the outer flow channel (see annotated fig. 2a of Gebhardt above).
Regarding claim 7, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the tangent to the inner surface of the nozzle head and the plane of the nozzle outlet form an outlet angle of 100° to 180°.
PNG
media_image3.png
376
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 1 wherein the cross-sectional area of the outer flow channel (portion 16 of the cited outer flow channel 15/16) decreases in the direction of flow (see Gebhardt, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the cross-sectional areas of the inner flow channel (channel inside 10) and of the outer flow channel (at least at portion 16 of the cited outer flow channel) are rotationally symmetrical (see Gebhardt, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 9, wherein the cross-sectional area of the inner flow channel is circular and the cross-sectional area of the outer flow channel is a circular ring (fig. 2a implies the nozzle has circular cross section; channel inside 10 therefore is circular, channel portion at 16 surrounding 10, as a result, would be ring shaped).
Regarding claim 14, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses a method for atomizing a first fluid by means of a second fluid (via disclosure of pipe 10 and outer flow channels 15, 16), the method comprising using the atomizer nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the first fluid is a liquid (paint) and the second fluid is a gas (compressed air).
Claim(s) 3, 6 is/are, in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt (US 3401883) in view of Hamaura (US20200147624), further in view of Diebel (US 20160296960).
Regarding claim 3, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 2. In the alternative where applicant insist baffle holes at 15 are not helically shaped.
Diebel discloses a comparable atomizer nozzle having a baffle 50 with angled guide vanes that are shown to be helically shaped (see figs. 12-13) to impart helical swirling motion ot the fluid (par. 45). The configuration is said to facilitate complete atomization and uniform dispersion via rapid compression and decompression of the spinning fluid delivered through the guide (par. 46).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gebhardt to incorporate the teachings of Diebel to provide the baffles being helically shaped specifically for better atomization and uniform dispersion of the fluid (see paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 6, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 2, but Gebhardt does not explicitly disclose at least four baffles are present which are uniformly distributed in the circumferential direction (Gebhardt does show multiple baffle wall sections forming the holes 15 shown in fig. 1 and 2a).
Diebel discloses a comparable atomizer nozzle having a baffle 50 with angled guide vanes (see figs. 12-13) uniformly distributed in the circumferential direction to impart helical swirling motion ot the fluid (par. 45). Figures 12-14 further show more than four baffles/veins defining the swirling flow channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least four baffles are present which are uniformly distributed in the circumferential direction, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality in the specific number of baffles, indicated via generic mention of “Preferably, at least four baffles are present which are uniformly distributed in the circumferential direction” (Specification page 4, lines 22-24).
Claim 4 is/are, in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt (US 3401883) in view of Hamaura (US20200147624), further in view of Niemela (WO2007006861; provided with IDS filed 3/11/2024).
Regarding claim 4, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 2, but fails to teach the inclination of the baffles decreases with respect to the flow direction from the inlet towards the outlet.
Niemela teaches a comparable spray nozzle provided with baffles/thread 10 to produce swirling motion to air flow (abstract; fig. 1), wherein the angle and depth of the threads 10 may vary in the desired manner to provide various spray patterns (par. 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gebhardt to incorporate the teachings of Niemela to try variations of the baffles/thread angles including inclination angle that decreases with respect to the flow direction from the inlet toward the outlet to facilitate the desired spray pattern to the user preference or intended task, as suggested by Niemela in paragraph 20.
Claim 11 is/are, in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt (US 3401883) in view of Hamaura (US20200147624), further in view of Rehman (US 4553701).
Regarding claim 11, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 1, but does not teach the inner flow channel widens conically towards the end, the cone angle being in the range from 5° to 25°.
Rehman discloses a comparable atomizer nozzle (abstract) having the inner flow channel widens (opening at 45) conically towards the end, and the cone angle is illustrated to be approximately within the range of 5° to 25° (fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gebhardt to incorporate the teachings of Rehman to provide the inner flow channel widens conically towards the end, the cone angle being in the range from 5° to 25°. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating a wider spray, compared to straighten outlet end, to accommodate the user preference or applicable coating task. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality over the claimed range according to the page 6 lines 11-12 of the Specification.
Claims 12, 13 is/are, in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt (US 3401883) in view of Hamaura (US20200147624), further in view of Masi (US 20050026099).
Regarding claim 12, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the atomizer nozzle according to claim 1, but Gebhardt does not explicitly teach the nozzle body and the nozzle head are adjustable relative to one another in the axial direction.
Masi discloses a comparable atomizer nozzle having a nozzle body 21 and nozzle head 23 adjustable relative to one another in the axial direction (along arrows 61; see figs. 4-5) allowing liquid/air mixture ratio to be modified (par. 34).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gebhardt to incorporate the teachings of Masi to provide the nozzle body and the nozzle head are adjustable relative to one another in the axial direction. Gebhardt as modified in view of Masi would result in variability in liquid/air mixture, which is advantageous to optimize atomization level and uniformity distribution of the fluid.
Regarding claim 13, Gebhardt, as modified above, discloses the one atomizer nozzle according to claim 1, but Gebhardt does not explicitly teach the nozzle is part of waste incineration plant for incineration of waste.
Masi, however, teaches a comparable nozzle with inner liquid flow channel and outer gas flow channel surrounding the inner flow channel, wherein the nozzle is used with a burner.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gebhardt to incorporate the teachings of Masi to utilize the atomizer nozzle with a burner for burning anything including waste. Doing so would improve efficiency of combustion (par. 2). It is noted that the claimed “waste incineration plant” only require the atomizer nozzle according to claim 1 and Masi is cited to show that the atomizer nozzle is known to be used in a burner and the prior art nozzle can be used as part of a waste incineration plant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752