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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant has cancelled claims 9-10; claims 1-8 are examiner hereafter.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the following claimed features are not labeled in the drawings:
A bottom wall
A baffle plate
A first socket
A top wall
A second socket
A cylindrical chamber
A conical chamber
A conically-shaped bottom end
A separating needle
A forked path
A fixing plate
A fixing hole
A plurality of threaded holes
Examiner notes these features need to be labeled in the drawings and the specification needs to be amended in order to disclose the labels with their respective feature.
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: “a locking assembly” in claim 1. This term meets the three-prong test and invokes 112(f) because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “assembly”; 2) it is modified by functional language - to lock the adjustment shaft; and 3) it is not modified by any actual structural 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. The Specification discloses the locking assembly as a fixing plate, a fixing screw and a fixing hole. Examiner will interpret it as such, or equivalent 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 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 3-5 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 3 discloses “a small end of the conical chamber” twice. This is considered double inclusion, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if there is one or more than one “small ends” of the conical chamber.
Claims 4-5 are indefinite for depending on claim 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (CN 114160325 A) in view of Murphy et al (U.S. 2023/0027176). Note: references to Zhao made in parenthesis are referencing the translation provided by Examiner herewith.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches an aperture-adjustable mixed-flow nozzle (seen in Figs 1-5 and disclosed in abstract), comprising a cylindrical shell (defined by 2 and 3, which are cylindrical, as seen in the Figs) with an airflow chamber (chamber defined downstream of inlet 8; Par 45 discloses the inlet used for gas) and a mixed-flow chamber (shown below) that are separated at top and bottom (the two chambers are separated at different ends; Examiner notes that the terms top and bottom are relative and are claimed in relation to a point of references; i.e. they are broad in scope), the airflow chamber is connected to an air inlet (8 is an gas inlet, and air is a gas - see Par 45; moreover, Examiner notes that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, as determined in MPEP 2115; therefore, the type of fluid does not carry patentable weight over the claimed nozzle and the apparatus of Zhao is deemed capable of working with air), and the mixed-flow chamber is connected to a liquid inlet (inlet 9, which is disclosed as an liquid inlet, see Par 63), wherein an nozzle (shown below) is provided at a bottom wall (shown below) of the mixed-flow chamber on the cylindrical shell; the cylindrical shell allows airflow from the airflow chamber to enter the mixed-flow chamber through an adjusting shaft (shaft 1, shown below); and a gas path (as seen below) for connecting the airflow chamber and the mixed-flow chamber (as seen below, the gas path connects the exit of the air chamber with the mixed-flow chamber) is disposed inside the adjusting shaft (as seen below, the gas path is disposed inside the adjusting shaft); the adjusting shaft is axially adjustable by extension and retraction along the cylindrical shell (as disclosed in Par 52, the adjusting shaft is connected to a distance adjusting shaft 12, which axially adjust the shaft within the shell, as claimed); and a locking assembly is provided between the adjusting shaft and the cylindrical shell (locking assembly defined by distance adjusting shaft 12 and connecting bolts 18, which are between the shaft 1 and the shell 2/3).
However, Zhao does not teach the device having a swirling flow path is disposed around an outer periphery of the adjusting shaft.
Murphy teaches a mixed flow nozzle comprising a swirling flow path (20, as seen in Fig 2; which create a swirling effect – Par 0018) is disposed around an outer periphery of a shaft (16, as seen in Figs 1 and 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 Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Murphy to provide a swirling flow path around the outer periphery of the adjustment shaft in order to create a swirling motion that aids in mixing and creating small droplets of the mixed fluid (see Pars 0018 and 0021 of Murphy), which would benefit the efficiency of the mixed-flow nozzle of Zhao.
Note: references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing Zhao, unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao and Murphy teach the aperture-adjustable mixed-flow nozzle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cylindrical shell is internally separated by a baffle plate (shown below) to form the airflow chamber and the mixed-flow chamber (as seen below, the baffled plate defines the mixed-flow chamber at an upstream end and defines the airflow chamber through by holding the shaft in place); a first socket (shown below) is arranged at a top wall (“top” is arbitrary as it depends on the orientation the nozzle is held at) of the airflow chamber on the cylindrical shell (the first socket is arranged at an upstream wall of the cylindrical shell), and a second socket (shown below) is correspondingly arranged on the baffle plate (as seen below, the second socket is arranged on the baffle plate); and the adjusting shaft is connected with the first socket and the second socket in sequence to form a thread engagement assembly (the two sockets correspond to 10 and 12, both of which define a thread engagement assembly that axially adjusts the shaft, as disclosed in Par 49 and 60).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Zhao and Murphy teach the aperture-adjustable mixed-flow nozzle as claimed in claim 2, wherein the mixed-flow chamber comprises a cylindrical chamber (shown below) and a conical chamber (shown below) that are interconnected with each other (as seen below), with a small end of the conical chamber being connected to the nozzle (the small end, i.e. narrower end of the conical chamber, connects to the nozzle, as seen below); a bottom of the adjusting shaft is a conical-shaped bottom end (shown below, “bottom end” interpreted as the downstream end), with a separating needle (defined by downstream end of 6) solidly disposed at the conical-shaped bottom end (as seen below), and the separating needle extends from a small end of the conical chamber to the nozzle (the needle extends from the small end of the conical chamber towards the nozzle, as seen below).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Zhao and Murphy teach the aperture-adjustable mixed-flow nozzle as claimed in claim 3, wherein the air inlet is vertically (“vertical” is relative to the orientation the nozzle is held/used) disposed on one side of the cylindrical shell orthogonal to an axis of the adjusting shaft (the air inlet 8 is at a vertical location, i.e. upstream, on the shell and is orthogonal, i.e. perpendicular, to the axis of the shaft 1, see Figs 1-5), the liquid inlet is disposed on the other side of the cylindrical shell aligned to a tangential direction of the adjusting shaft (the liquid inlet 9 is in a position tangential to the axis of the adjusting shaft, see Figs 1-5), a top end of the gas path is bent to connect to the airflow chamber (as shown below).
However, Zhao does not teach a bottom end of the gas path is connected to the mixed-flow chamber through a forked path.
Murphy teaches a gas path (gas coming from inlet 16) that is connected to a mixed-flow chamber (14) through a forked path (defined by air channels 28, which are in the form of a forked path, as seen in Figs 1-2).
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 further modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Murphy to provide a forked path at the end of the gas path because the forked path along with the swirling motion of the swirling flow path aids in mixing and creating small droplets of the mixed fluid (see Pars 0018 and 0021 of Murphy), which would benefit the efficiency of the mixed-flow nozzle of Zhao.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Zhao and Murphy teach the aperture-adjustable mixed-flow nozzle as claimed in claim 4, wherein the swirling flow path is a groove helically provided around the outer periphery of the adjusting shaft (see 20 and grooves 30 of Fig 1 of Murphy), and a lower end (lower end is relative depending on orientation of the nozzle) of the swirling flow path is disposed above (interpreted as upstream) the forked path (the lower end of the swirling flow path 20 is upstream of the forked path, as seen in Fig 1-2 of Murphy).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao and Murphy teach the aperture-adjustable mixed-flow nozzle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the locking assembly comprises a fixing screw (18), a fixing plate (plate where the screw 18 is secured, seen Fig 5 and shown below) provided at a top of the adjusting shaft (as seen below), a fixing hole (hole where screw 18 is passed on) provided on the fixing plate (see in Fig 5), and a plurality of threaded holes provided on a top wall of the cylindrical shell (plurality of threaded holes, seen in Fig 1, holes that house the plurality of fixing screws 18); the fixing screw successively crosses through the fixing hole and the threaded holes from top to bottom to form a thread engagement for locking (as seem in Fig 2, the screw 18 passes through the fixing hole from one end to another end of the fixing plate).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (CN 114160325 A) in view of Murphy et al (U.S. 2023/0027176); further in view of Yu (CN 105921310 A). Note: references to Yu made in parenthesis are referencing the translation provided by Examiner herewith.
Regarding claim 7, Zhao and Murphy teach the aperture-adjustable mixed-flow nozzle as claimed in claim 6. However, they do not teach the nozzle wherein a magnet is disposed at a bottom of the threaded holes, and the magnet is fixed with the fixing screw through magnetic attraction.
Yu teaches a nozzle that includes a magnet disposed at a bottom of a fixing hole (4 is disclosed as ferrous to generate a magnetic attraction, see highlighted portion of translation), for engagement with a screw (as disclosed in the highlighter section of translation, the screw 5 has a tip 6 that magnetically attracts to the fixing hole 4).
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 Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Yu to provide a magnetic connection between the fixing hole and the screw in order to rapidly, conveniently and securely attach the screw onto the fixing plate (as disclosed in abstract of Yu).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (CN 114160325 A) in view of Murphy et al (U.S. 2023/0027176); further in view of Baekke (WO 2021182954 A1). Note: references to Baekke made in parenthesis are referencing the translation provided by Examiner herewith.
Regarding claim 8, Zhao and Murphy teach the aperture-adjustable mixed-flow nozzle as claimed in claim 1. However, they do not teach the nozzle wherein a flow gather hood is disposed on an outer side of the cylindrical shell at the nozzle; the flow gather hood is conical-shaped and gradually expands downward from the cylinder shell; and a plurality of negative pressure suction ports with a trapezoidal shape are arranged on the outer wall of the flow gather hood.
Baekke teaches a nozzle wherein a flow gather hood (12) is disposed on an outer side of a cylindrical shell (defined at 13) at the nozzle (11); the flow gather hood is conical-shaped and gradually expands downward from the cylinder shell (as seen in Fig 2); and a plurality of negative pressure suction ports (air intake holes 12a draw air into the hood) are arranged on the outer wall of the flow gather hood (as seen in 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 Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Baekke to provide a hood with negative pressure ports at the end of the nozzle in order to shield the user from spray and to aid in mixing due to the ports (see the highlighted section of translation).
Regarding the negative pressure suction ports having a trapezoidal shape, it would have been an obvious matter to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable shape for the suction ports, including the shape of a trapezoid, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, selecting any shape for the ports involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Dailey: the court found that shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). In the present case, Baekke discloses all the general structure of the claim; therefore, it would be obvious to select any workable shape for the device to function as desired. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the ports be of trapezoidal shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights