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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on March 31, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 “holding element” and “separating element” in claim 1 (In the Applicant response dated March 31, 2026, the Applicant explain that the “holding element” corresponds with spring 42 and “separating element” corresponds with membrane 44. Examiner’s note: While there appears to be basis for these terms in the original specification nonetheless the meaning of every terms, especially terms now used to patentably define over the prior art, used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing or the use of same terms to refer a variety of different things should not be permitted. Same objection applies to the elements listed below);
the “obstruction element” as recited in claim 4 (In the Applicant response dated March 31, 2026, the Applicant explain that the “obstruction element” corresponds with directing element 64. Examiner’s note: It is unclear why and how the Applicant would reasonably expect that the Examiner, hence the general public, to connect the dots that “obstruction element” as recited in claim 4 is actually referring to the directing element 64?); and
the “detection system” as recited in claim 16 (In the Applicant response dated March 31, 2026, the Applicant explain that the “detection system” may be a camera. Examiner’s note: The concept of using a camera is not disclosed in the original disclosure. However, if the Applicant’s assertion is true, then the limitation “detection system,” interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), would/should have further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement);
the positioning system that is configured to provide position data, wherein the position data comprises a real-time position of the agricultural device, and a memory as recited in claim 17 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “stopping element,” “holding element” and “separating element” in claim 1, where the term “element” is the placeholder and “stopping,” “holding” and “separating” are the functional language. Similar interpretation applies to the limitation(s) “obstruction element” as recited in claim 4 and the “flow constriction element” as recited in claim 6. The “detection system” in claim 16, where the term “system” is the placeholder and “detection” is the functional language. The “positioning system” in claim 17, where the term “system” is the placeholder and “positioning” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The spraying according to claim 1,” in line 1 should read -- The spraying nozzle according to claim 1.-- 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 10 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.
The terms “removably comprised,” in line 2 of claim 10 rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is the meaning of the terms “removably comprised?” “Removably” is defined as “capable of being removed” and “comprised” is defined as “to be made up of.” Merriam-Webster. The two terms appear to contradict one another. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 2, 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yaacov (WO2012001683).
With respect to claim 1, Yaacov discloses a spraying nozzle (Figs. 1-5) (capable of being used) for an agricultural device, the spraying nozzle comprising a body (Fig. 1 except 17) and a nozzle head (17), the body comprising:
a first inlet chamber (defined by 7);
a second inlet chamber (defined by 3); and
a mixing chamber (2),
wherein the first inlet chamber (defined by 7 and further including the lower portion of 2) comprises a first inlet (opening of 7) configured to (capable of) receive a first fluid (from 15) under a first pressure and a first outlet (around 1, including the lower portion of 2) that is fluidly connected to the mixing chamber;
wherein the second inlet chamber comprises a second inlet (12) configured to (capable of) accept a second fluid (from 20) under a second pressure (water pressure head in 20) and a second outlet (11) that is fluidly connected with the mixing chamber, and wherein the mixing chamber is fluidly connected to the nozzle head;
wherein the second inlet chamber further comprises a stopping element (31, 1) configured to (capable of) be moveable between a stopping position (Fig. 3) in which a connection between the second inlet and the second outlet is fluidly closed, and an open position (Fig. 2) in which the connection between the second inlet and the second outlet is fluidly open,
wherein the stopping element is operatively connected to a holding element (31, 4) configured to (capable of) hold the stopping element in the stopping position; and
wherein the body further comprises a separating element (1) moveable positioned between the first inlet chamber and the second inlet chamber and wherein the separating element is operatively connected to the stopping element and is configured to (capable of) move the stopping element towards the open position in reaction to the first fluid entering the first inlet chamber.
With respect to claim 2, Yaacov discloses wherein the separating element is a membrane or a sealed plunger (core 1).
With respect to claim 4, Yaacov discloses wherein the first inlet chamber comprises an obstruction element (outer wall of core 1 and inner wall of housing 2 including 11) that is configured to (capable of) direct the first fluid from the first inlet along a first surface (outer surface of 1) of the separating element towards the first outlet.
With respect to claim 5, Yaacov discloses wherein the first inlet chamber comprises a first channel (defined by passage from 7 to 5) fluidly connected to the first inlet and a second channel (defined by passage from 12 to 5) fluidly connected to the first outlet, the first and second channel both extending in a first direction (along the outer surface of 1) that is parallel to the first surface of the separating element and wherein the obstruction element is positioned between the first and second channel and comprises at least two directing channels (11) that are positioned perpendicular to the first direction and which are configured to (capable of) direct a flow from the first channel along the first surface of the separating element to the second channel.
With respect to claim 6, Yaacov discloses wherein the first outlet comprises a flow constriction element (outer wall of core 1 and inner wall of housing 2 including 11) comprising a passage (defined by 1 and 2) with a predetermined diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the first inlet chamber.
With respect to claim 7, Yaacov discloses the spraying nozzle according to claim 6, wherein the first inlet chamber is removably positioned within the body (the lower portion of 2 is within/under body of 10. Fig. 2) and wherein the flow constriction element is replaceable comprised in the first outlet (core 1 is separable from the passage around 1. Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, Yaacov discloses the spraying nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle head is removably connected (via 16) to the mixing chamber.
With respect to claim 9, Yaacov discloses the spraying nozzle according to claim 1, wherein a distance the stopping element (of 1) moves towards the open position positively correlates with the first pressure (by the elastic strength of the spring 4).
With respect to claim 10, Yaacov discloses the spraying nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the second inlet chamber is removably comprised in the body (3 is a separate element from 2) and wherein the holding element is replaceable comprised in the second inlet chamber (4 is a separate element from 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 11-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaacov in view of Haruch (US4899937).
With respect to claim 3, Yaacov discloses the spraying nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the first fluid is a liquid to be sprayed.
Yaacov fails to disclose wherein the second fluid is a gaseous medium.
However, Haruch teaches a spraying nozzle (Figs. 1-7) for an agricultural device (under BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION), the spraying nozzle comprising a body (11) and a nozzle head (25), the body comprising: a first inlet chamber (15); a second inlet chamber (62); and a mixing chamber (56), wherein the first fluid is a liquid to be sprayed and the second fluid is a gaseous medium (pressurized air).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine by adding pressurized air into the first fluid, as taught by Haruch, to Yaacov’s spraying system, in order to reduce the flow rate of the liquid stream and for causing the air and liquid streams to interact to effect preatomization of the liquid (Abstract).
With respect to claim 11, Yaacov discloses spraying nozzle according to claim 1, a spraying system (Figs. 1-5) (capable of being used) for an agricultural device, the spraying system comprising a main supply (connect to 15) for supplying a liquid (hot water) to be sprayed, wherein the main supply is operatively connected to a main pumping system (electrically driven water pump. Second paragraph under “Background of the invention”) via a first supply line (15).
Yaacov fails to disclose wherein the main pumping system is operatively connected via a second supply line to the first inlets of the spraying nozzle, and wherein the spraying system further comprising an air supply system operatively connected to the second inlets of the plurality of spraying nozzles and configured to supply the second fluid to the spraying nozzles.
However, Haruch teaches a spraying system (Figs. 1-7) for an agricultural device (under BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION), the spraying system comprising a main supply (tank or supply main. Not shown) for supplying a liquid to be sprayed, wherein the main supply is operatively connected to a provide pressurized liquid system via a first supply line (the boom), wherein the pressurized liquid system (main pumping system) is operatively connected via a second supply line (15) to the first inlets of a plurality of spraying nozzles (several nozzles are secured to and are spaced along an elongated hollow boom (not shown)), and wherein the spraying system further comprising an air supply system (that provides the supply of pressurized air) operatively connected to the second inlets (62) of the plurality of spraying nozzles and configured to (capable of) supply the second fluid to the spraying nozzles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine by adding pressurized air into the first fluid and a plurality of spraying nozzles on a boom, as taught by Haruch, to Yaacov’s spraying system, in order to reduce the flow rate of the liquid stream and for causing the air and liquid streams to interact to effect preatomization of the liquid while increase the spray area (Abstract).
With respect to claim 12, Yaacov’s spraying system modified by Haruch’s air supply system and plurality of spraying nozzles on a boom, Yaacov and Haruch further teaches wherein the spraying system comprises one or more control valves (30, 31 and valve at 50) positioned between the main pump and the plurality of spraying nozzles (of Haruch) and wherein the spraying system further comprises a spray control system (40 of Yaacov) operatively connected to the one or more control valves and configured to control the opening and closing thereof.
With respect to claim 13, Yaacov’s spraying system modified by Haruch’s air supply system and plurality of spraying nozzles on a boom, Yaacov further discloses wherein the one or more control valves comprises on/off valves (30, 31 and valve at 50).
With respect to claim 14, Yaacov’s spraying system modified by Haruch’s air supply system and plurality of spraying nozzles on a boom, Yaacov further discloses wherein the plurality of spraying nozzles are grouped in a plurality of spraying group (one nozzle in each group), each spraying group with an associated control valve and/or wherein each spraying nozzles has an associated control valve (Fig. 1 of Yaacov).
With respect to claim 15, Yaacov discloses the spraying system according to claim 11, except for an agricultural device for dispensing a liquid product to be sprayed over a surface, the agricultural device comprising the spraying system according to claim 11, the machine further comprising at least one boom along which the plurality of spraying nozzles are positioned.
However, Haruch teaches an agricultural device (Figs. 1-7 including the boom and water and air supply. Not shown) for dispensing a liquid product (fertilizer or insecticide. Under “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS”) to be sprayed over a surface (agricultural field), the agricultural device comprising a spraying system (Figs. 1-7), the machine further comprising at least one boom along which the plurality of spraying nozzles are positioned.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an agricultural device with a plurality of spraying nozzles on a boom, as taught by Haruch, to Yaacov’s spraying system, in order to spray liquid fertilizer or insecticide on an agricultural field (Col. 2, lines 29-41).
With respect to claim 19, Yaacov’s spraying system modified/added unto Haruch’s agricultural device with a plurality of spraying nozzles on a boom, Yaacov and Haruch further teaches a method for dispending a liquid (fertilizer or insecticide. Under “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS” of Haruch) to be sprayed over a surface (agricultural field), such as an agricultural field, the method comprising: providing the agricultural device according to claim 15; and dispensing the liquid to be sprayed by using the main pumping system to supply the liquid to be the sprayed to a spraying valves (Figs. 2 and 3 of Haruch).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaacov in view of Haruch and further in view of Smith (US 11607703).
With respect to claim 16, Yaacov’s the spraying system modified/adding onto the agricultural device of Haruch, Yaacov and Haruch fails to disclose wherein the agricultural device further comprises a detection system that is positioned on the at least one boom and/or in front of the agricultural device, the detection system providing detection data to the spray control system, the detection data comprising information on the surface and wherein the spray control system is configured to control the one or more control valves in accordance with the detection data; and wherein the detection data comprises plant and/or field characteristics.
However, Smith teaches an agricultural device (Fig. 1-8) further comprises a detection system (sensor assembly 100) that is positioned on the at least one boom (34, 38, 42) and/or in front of the agricultural device (10) the detection system providing detection data (data indicative of one or more field conditions) to the spray control system, the detection data comprising information on the surface (tank and nozzle system) and wherein the spray control system is configured to (capable of) control the one or more control valves in accordance with the detection data (Col. 4, lines 4-29); and wherein the detection data comprises plant and/or field characteristics (Col. 4, lines 30-37 and Col. 6, lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a detection system, as taught by Smith, to Yaacov and Haruch’s agricultural device, in order to control a supply of agricultural product through the plurality of spray nozzles based at least in part on data generated by the field sensor(s) indicative of the field conditions relative to the sprayer (Col. 6, lines 28-31).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaacov in view of Haruch and further in view of Hillger et al. (US 9743655. Hillger hereinafter).
With respect to claim 17, Yaacov’s the spraying system modified/adding onto the agricultural device of Haruch, Yaacov and Haruch fails to disclose wherein the spraying system comprises one or more control valves positioned between the main pump and the plurality of spraying nozzles and wherein the spraying system further comprises a spray control system operatively connected to the one or more control valves and configured to control the opening and closing thereof, and
wherein the agricultural device further comprises:
a positioning system that is configured to provide position data, wherein the position data comprises a real-time position of the agricultural device; and a memory with a map containing field information stored thereon; and wherein the spray control system is further configured to receive the position data and field information and control the one or more control valves in accordance with the field information corresponding to the position data.
However, Hillger teaches an agricultural system (Fig. 1-12) further comprises an agricultural device (620) wherein the machine further comprises:
a positioning system (Global Positioning System (GPS)) that is configured to (capable of) provide position data, wherein the position data comprises a real-time position of the agricultural device; and
a memory (of the GPS) with a map (Col. 5, lines 11-46 and Figs. 11 and 12) containing field information stored thereon; and
wherein the spray control system is further configured to (capable of) receive the position data and field information and control the one or more control valves (646A-B) in accordance with the field information corresponding to the position data (col. 2, line 21 to Col. 3, line 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a positioning system, as taught by Hillger, to Yaacov and Haruch’s agricultural device, in order to adjust or provide instructions to spraying systems in real time based on the actual and current field conditions (Abstract).
With respect to claim 20, Yaacov’s the spraying system modified/adding onto the agricultural device of Haruch, Yaacov and Haruch fails to disclose a method according to claim 19, further comprising: obtaining one or more of a position data, a field information and/or a plant characteristic; determining an amount of liquid to be sprayed in response to the one or more of the position data, the field information and/or the plant characteristic; and opening and/or closing one or more control valves in accordance with the determined amount of liquid to be sprayed.
However, Hillger teaches a method for dispending a liquid to be sprayed over a surface, the method further comprising: obtaining one or more of a position data (via the Global Positioning System (GPS)), a field information and/or a plant characteristic (col. 2, line 21 to Col. 3, line 13); determining an amount of liquid to be sprayed in response to the one or more of the position data, the field information and/or the plant characteristic; and opening and/or closing one or more control valves (646A-B) in accordance with the determined amount of liquid to be sprayed
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a method for dispending a liquid to be sprayed over a surface with a positioning system, as taught by Hillger, to Yaacov and Haruch’s agricultural device, in order to adjust or provide instructions to spraying systems in real time based on the actual and current field conditions (Abstract).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaacov in view of Haruch and further in view of Bermudez Rodriguez et al. (US 10165736. Bermudez hereinafter).
With respect to claim 18, Yaacov’s the spraying system modified/adding onto the agricultural device of Haruch, Yaacov and Haruch fails to disclose wherein the agricultural device is self-propelling.
However, Bermudez teaches an agricultural system (Figs. 1-3) comprising an agricultural device (rover system 10), wherein the agricultural device is self-propelling (Col. 1, lines 52-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a self-propelling rover system, as taught by Bermudez, to Yaacov and Haruch’s agricultural device, in order to automatically adjust or provide instructions to spraying systems in real time based on the actual and current field conditions (Col. 1, line 31 to Col. 2, line 2 and Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the drawing objections, the Applicant response dated March 31, 2026, resolved part or portion of the objection. As elaborated in the Examiner’s note above, while there appears to be basis for these terms in the original specification nonetheless the meaning of every terms, especially terms now used to patentably define over the prior art, used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing or the use of same terms to refer a variety of different things should not be permitted.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yaacov, the Applicant argues that Yaacov does not disclose a second inlet chamber comprising a stopping element as recited in claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As clearly elaborated above, Yaacov discloses wherein the second inlet chamber comprises a second inlet (12) configured to (capable of) accept a second fluid (from 20) under a second pressure (water pressure head in 20) and a second outlet (11) that is fluidly connected with the mixing chamber, and wherein the mixing chamber is fluidly connected to the nozzle head; wherein the second inlet chamber further comprises a stopping element (31, 1) configured to (capable of) be moveable between a stopping position (Fig. 3) in which a connection between the second inlet and the second outlet is fluidly closed, and an open position (Fig. 2) in which the connection between the second inlet and the second outlet is fluidly open. As shown in the Fig. 3 with additional annotations below, Yaacov discloses the second inlet chamber (generally a space/chamber defined by manifold 3 comprising inlet 12 and outlet 11) comprising a stopping element (core 1), as recited in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant also argues that the stopping element in Yaacov controls the passage between the inlet line 7 and the core housing 2 and does not, as is specified in claim 1, control a connection between the second inlet and the second outlet. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the instant case, claim 1 recites “…a stopping position in which a connection between the second inlet and the second outlet is fluidly closed…,” in other words, in stopping position, there is not “fluid connection or fluid flow” from point A to point B (the second inlet as point A and the second outlet as point B) because it is fluidly closed. As shown in Fig. 3 of Yaacov, the fluidic blockage at core 1 prohibit/prevent additional fluid flowing or connecting between the second inlet and the second outlet fluidly. The Applicant appears to argue that the stopping element is located in between the second inlet and the second outlet. Applicant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. No such limitations can be found in the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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, 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights