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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 4/29/2024 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
There is a lack of antecedent basis for:
“the liquid oxygenation“ in claim 1, line 12.
“the exterior of the nozzle” in claim 1, line 11.
“the interior of the nozzle” in claim 1, line 12.
“the tap” in claims 5-7 and 12-14.
“the largest diameter” and “the smallest diameter” in claim 12.
In claim 1, line 10, the term “to the to” has typographical error.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 followings:
In claim 2, the air flow circuit is at least partially disposed between an internal surface of the nozzle and an outer lateral surface of the paddle wheel and/or an outer lateral surface of the planar grid;
In claim 10, the planar grid comprises fins, 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 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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the nozzle housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-8, 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch (DE 3022832 A) in view of Hyde (US 2,624,559).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hirsch discloses a tap nozzle (fig.1-2) comprising a nozzle inlet (see upper end of 1 in marked arrows shown in fig.1) arranged to be connected to a tap outlet for allowing a liquid to flow from the tap outlet into the nozzle (see [0009] of the attached translation); a nozzle outlet (see lower end of 1 in marked area 4) in fluid communication with the nozzle inlet and arranged to allow the liquid to flow out from the nozzle, so as to form a liquid flow circuit (see fig.1); a paddle wheel (81) rotatably mounted between the nozzle inlet and the nozzle outlet around a flow axis determined by the flow of the liquid in the nozzle (see fig.1), the paddle wheel comprising a plurality of blades (blades 81, [0015]) extending radially from the flow axis; a planar grid (2) disposed between the paddle wheel and the nozzle outlet in a plane transverse to the to flow axis (see fig.1); an air flow circuit allowing an air flow to circulate from the exterior of the nozzle to the interior of the nozzle so as to maximize the liquid oxygenation in the nozzle, the air flow circuit being at least partially distinct from the liquid flow circuit (see air inlet from 6 on the wall of 1).
Hirsch is silent in disclosing the paddle wheel comprising a plurality of fins; and the fins of the paddle wheel are slanted. However, Hyde teaches the commonality of having slanted fins (14) in the paddle wheel (12) within a nozzle system (see fig.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the blade of the paddle wheel of Hirsch to fins as taught by Hyde, in order to improve flow quality.
Regarding claim 2, Hirsch discloses the air flow circuit is at least partially disposed between an internal surface of the nozzle and an outer lateral surface of the paddle wheel and/or an outer lateral surface of the planar grid (see location of 6 with regard to 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hirsch discloses the air flow circuit comprises an air flow inlet distinct from the nozzle outlet (see location of 6 in fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, Hirsch discloses the air flow inlet comprises at least one hole in an outer lateral surface of the nozzle (6 on 1).
Regarding claim 5, Hirsch discloses the tap further comprises at least one air flow outlet disposed internally to the nozzle (see lower outlet on 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hirsch discloses the tap further comprises a nozzle housing (see [0013-0014] housing of an outlet fitting).
Regarding claim 7, Hirsch is silent in disclosing the tap further comprises O-ring disposed between an outer lateral surface of the nozzle and an inner lateral surface of the nozzle housing. However, Hyde teaches the commonality of having a tap with an O-ring (18) disposed between an outer lateral surface of the nozzle and an inner lateral surface of the nozzle housing (col 2, ll.43-70). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add a seal as taught by Hyde to the nozzle of Hirsch, in order to prevent any leakage.
Regarding claim 9, Hirsch discloses the planar grid is rotatably mounted around the flow axis ([0014]).
Regarding claim 13, Hirsch discloses the tap further comprises a liquid flow director
Regarding claim 14, Hirsch is silent in disclosing the tap further comprises a plurality of slots on an outer lateral surface of the nozzle. However, Hyde teaches the commonality of a plurality of slots (6) on an outer lateral surface of the nozzle (2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add more slots as taught by Hyde to the nozzle body of Hirsch, in order to improve aeration of the mixing fluid.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hirsch (DE 3022832 A) in view of Hyde (US 2,624,559) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ouazzani (WO 2008141943 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hirsch and Hyde in combination are silent in disclosing the planar grid comprises fins. However, Ouazzani teaches the commonality of having a planar grid (4) to have fins (42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the planar grid of Hirsch and Hyde in combination as such to have fins as taught by Ouazzani, in order to reinforce the strength of the plate (see Ouazzani, see page 5, ll.23-26 of the attached translation).
Regarding claim 11, Hirsch discloses the paddle wheel and the planar grid are integral one with each other (see fig.1, 2 and 8 are connected via the same shaft 9).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hirsch (DE 3022832 A) in view of Hyde (US 2,624,559) and Ouazzani (WO 2008141943 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Aghnides (US 2,962,255).
Hirsch, Hyde and Ouazzani in combination are silent in disclosing the tap further comprises a funnel
State of the Prior Arts
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts to Hirsch (DE 3022832 A), Hyde (US 2,624,559), Aghnides (US 2,962,255), Kim (AU 2014370740 B2), Neibrook (US 5,862,985), Chen (US 6,991,182) and Henkin (WO 9737087 A1) as cited in PTO-892 are also citing significant pertinent structures or features to the applicant’s claimed invention with regard to a nozzle inlet to be connected to a tap outlet for allowing a liquid to flow from the tap outlet into the nozzle; a nozzle outlet in fluid communication with the nozzle inlet and arranged to allow the liquid to flow out from the nozzle, so as to form a liquid flow circuit; a paddle wheel rotatably mounted between the nozzle inlet and the nozzle outlet around a flow axis determined by the flow of the liquid in the nozzle, the paddle wheel comprising a plurality of fins extending radially from the flow axis; a planar grid disposed between the paddle wheel and the nozzle outlet in a plane transverse to the to flow axis; an air flow circuit allowing an air flow to circulate from the exterior of the nozzle to the interior of the nozzle so as to maximize the liquid oxygenation in the nozzle, the air flow circuit being at least partially distinct from the liquid flow circuit. It appears that claim 1 does not provide any inventive concept over the cited prior arts.
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