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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 2, “ball or roller bearing” should be amended to read “ball bearing or roller bearing,” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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 limitation "fluid" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the inlet” in line 9. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the inlet of the pressure chamber, or the inlet of the fluid channel.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the [. . . ] exit" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “fluid” in line 10. It is unclear whether the limitation refers back to the previously recited “fluid” of line 6, or a different fluid.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the fluid outlet” in line 14. It is unclear whether the limitation refers back to the fluid outlet of the pressure chamber or the fluid chamber.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the fluid outlet” in line 3. It is unclear whether the limitation refers back to the fluid outlet of the pressure chamber or the fluid chamber.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from claim 1.
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) 1-3, 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henkin (US 4,813,086).
Regarding claim 1, Henkin discloses a device for delivering an orbital fluid jet, comprising:
a body (162, 158, 140) comprising a pressure chamber (the combination of interior space created by the 3 components upstream of outlet 220 is interpreted as the pressure chamber) provided with a fluid inlet (166) and a fluid outlet (220); a rotor (180) having a top (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), a bottom (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), a rotational axis (Column 6, lines 66-67), and a fluid channel (194) having a fluid inlet (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) located on the top of the rotor on the axis (Figure 4) for receipt of fluid from the fluid outlet of the body (The inlet is capable of receiving fluid from the outlet), an outlet (192) located on the bottom of the rotor (180) spaced from the axis (Column 5, lines 52-57), and a helical channel (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) providing fluid communication between the inlet and exit (Figure 4) configured to cause the rotor to rotate about the axis when fluid is forced through the channel (The configuration of the channel provides for the claimed capability; Column 5, lines 57-68); and
a mounting (232) for rotatably mounting the rotor (Column 5, lines 22-26), wherein the mounting is disposed within the pressure chamber (Figure 4), and the rotor comprises an axle (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) that extends into the pressure chamber through the fluid outlet (220) (Figure 4), wherein the axle is suspended from the mounting (Figure 4) for rotation relative to the mounting about the rotational axis (Column 5, lines 57-68).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Henkin discloses the device according to Claim 1, in which the mounting (232) comprises a socket with a central aperture (the opening of o-ring 224), and in which the axle extends through the central aperture (Figure 4) and comprises a ball (199) configured to nest in the socket (Figure 4) for rotation of the ball and axle relative to the socket (Column 5, lines 42-50).
Regarding claim 3, Henkin discloses the device according to Claim 2, in which the ball is spherical or hemi-spherical (The ball is spherical).
Regarding claim 5, Henkin discloses the device according to claim 1, including an axle guide (224) disposed in the pressure chamber between the mounting and the fluid outlet (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Henkin discloses the device according to claim 1,in which the or each channel outlet is located at a periphery of the bottom of the rotor (Figure 4; The outlet is located at a periphery of the rotor, relative to the center).
Regarding claim 10, Henkin discloses the device according to claim 1,including a handle (164) having a distal end (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) and a through lumen (276), wherein the distal end of the handle is coupled to the body (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) and the lumen is fluidically coupled to the pressure chamber (Column 6, lines 43-46).
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin in view of Kephart (US 5,704,549).
Regarding 4, Henkin discloses the device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a bearing surface of the mounting comprises a ball or roller bearing.
Kephart discloses an analogous rotating discharge device that includes a ball bearing (68) about a bearing surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henkin with the disclosures of Kephart, providing the bearing surface to include a ball bearing, as the configurations were known alternatives before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to receive, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of support of the ball in rotating and tilting, in a system where the support structure is not a critical element.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin in view of Schlick (US 1,837,339).
Regarding claim 7, Henkin discloses the device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose in which the helical channel tapers inwardly or outwardly from the inlet to the outlet.
Schlick discloses an atomizing nozzle outlet (Figure 2) that includes a channel (U) that tapers from the inlet to the outlet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to modify Henkin with the disclosures of Schlick, providing the helical channel to taper inward from the inlet to the outlet, as the configurations were known alternative discharge patterns before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of a desired discharge pattern in a system where the discharge pattern is not a critical element.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin in view of Raissi (FR2934508).
Regarding claim 6, Henkin discloses the device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a device in which the helical channel comprises a plurality of sections of straight channel sections connected end to end and deployed in a helical path.
Raissi discloses an analogous discharge rotor in which a helical channel (Figure 13, the helical channel discharging from Pn to P1n) comprises a plurality of sections of straight channel sections connected end to end (Pn and P1n) and deployed in a helical path (Figure 13), as an alternative to a nozzle with a single helical channel (Figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henkin with the disclosures of Raissi, providing the rotor to include a passage in which the helical channel comprises a plurality of sections of straight channel sections connected end to end and deployed in a helical path (Raissi, Figure 13), in order to provide for a discharge appropriate for operations that require an alternative of more aggressive discharge pattern, as disclosed by Raissi (Description, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 8, Henkin discloses the device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the rotor comprises a plurality of channels each having a shared inlet and upper section and separate diverging lower sections.
Raissi discloses an analogous discharge rotor that includes a plurality of channels (S1n, S2n, S3n) (Figure 11), each having a shared inlet (On) and shared upper section (Pn), and separate diverging lower sections (S1n, S2n, S3n),as an alternative to a nozzle with a single helical channel (Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henkin with the disclosures of Raissi, providing the rotor to include a plurality of channels each having a shared inlet and upper section and separate diverging lower sections, in order to provide for a discharge appropriate for operations that require an alternative of more aggressive discharge pattern, as disclosed by Raissi (Description, paragraph 1 and Page 3, paragraph 7).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin in view of Henkin Figure 18.
Regarding claim 11, Henkin discloses the device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the rotor has a frustoconical shape.
Figure 18 discloses an embodiment in which a rotor has a frustoconical shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henkin with the disclosures of the embodiment of figure 18, providing the rotor to have a frustoconical shapesince it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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 O. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752