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
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, “a source of liquid” should be amended to read, “a source of a liquid,” for clarity;
In claim 1, line 8, “the pair of nozzle” should be amended to read, “the pair of nozzles,” for clarity;
In claim 1, line 9, “the pressure” should be amended to read “a pressure,” for clarity;
In claim 1, line 11, “the outside” should be amended to read, “an outside,” for clarity.
The same objections apply to claims 8 and 13.
In claim 5, line 3, “a liquid” should be amended to read “the liquid,” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoops (US 2009/0152373) in view of Dickner (WO2016165732).
Regarding claim 1, Stoops discloses a unitary single molded spray nozzle, comprising:
a body (10) extending from an entry end (80a) to an exit end (18), said body having a hollow cavity (20) from the entry end to the exit end to create a continuous interior section (Figure 2);
the entry end (80a) including interior threads (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) for securing to a source of liquid (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The threading is capable of being used to secure to a liquid source), the entry end having an entry ring (88) positioned above the interior threads (Figure 2, the ring is above the threads in the downstream direction), wherein the entry ring extends towards the centerline of the interior section (The entry ring protrudes from a perimeter toward the centerline of the interior section);
a handle (84) secured to the outside of the body (Figures 2 and 3), said handle including a pair of diametrically opposed rods attaching to the body (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2), but fails to disclose the exit end including a pair of nozzles with slotted orifices, the nozzles being in fluid communication with the interior section, the pair of nozzle being tapered in a narrowing configuration towards the slotted orifices to increase the pressure of the liquid as it is ejected.
Dickner discloses a spray nozzle that includes an exit end (30), including a pair of nozzles (102, 108) with slotted orifices (103, 109), the nozzles being in fluid communication with an interior section (the interior section of housing 14), the pair of nozzle being tapered in a narrowing configuration (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3, “tapered portion”) towards the slotted orifices (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3) to increase the pressure of the liquid as it is ejected (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The tapered portion cooperates with the wall of the membrane to stabilize the wall of the membrane, thus increasing the pressure of the liquid).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoops with the disclosures of Dickner, providing the nozzle to include includes the exit end (Stoops, 18), including a pair of nozzles (Dickner, 102, 108) with slotted orifices (Dickner, 103, 109), the nozzles being in fluid communication with the interior section (Stoops, Figure 2), the pair of nozzle being tapered in a narrowing configuration (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3, “tapered portion”) towards the slotted orifices (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3) to increase the pressure of the liquid as it is ejected (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The tapered portion cooperates with the wall of the membrane to stabilize the wall of the membrane, thus increasing the pressure of the liquid), in order to provide for a known structure that provides for spraying of fluid with a desired character.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
574
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
526
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 2, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of Claim 1, further comprising:
a ball valve (82) positioned in the interior section of the body (Figure 2) and secured to the pair of diametrically opposed rods that are attached to the handle (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2), and the ball valve having a channel opening (82c): (a) configured to align with the interior section when the handle is in an opened configuration, such that a liquid flowing into the entry end traverses the interior section through the channel opening of the ball valve to the exit end, and (b) configured to close off the liquid when the handle is moved to a closed configuration (Paragraphs 32-33).
Regarding claim 4, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of claim 1, wherein the interior section is divided into a first section, a second section, and a third section, wherein:" the first section is configured between the entry end and the ball valve and narrows towards the ball valve (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1); " the second section is configured between the ball valve and the exit end and expands outwardly towards the third section (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1); and " the third section extends from the exit end to the slotted nozzles and narrows towards the exit end (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3, The flaps of the nozzle provide for a narrowing of the exit end).
Regarding claim 5, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of claim 1, wherein the handle is configured to move to an intermediate position such that the channel opening of the ball valve is neither fully aligned nor fully closed off, thereby reducing the flow of a liquid from the entry end to the exit end (The member is a shut-off ball that is capable of being rotated to various positions between a fully open and shut off position, which reduces the flow of liquid).
Regarding claim 6, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of claim 1, wherein the ball valve is positioned in the interior section (Figure 2) such that it divides the interior section into a entry section (the portion of the cavity upstream of the ball) and a exit section (the portion of the cavity downstream of the ball).
Regarding claim 7, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of claim 1, wherein the slotted nozzles are configured to create a spray or wall of liquid when ejected (The nozzles are capable of spraying liquid).
Regarding claim 8, Stoops discloses a unitary single molded spray nozzle, comprising:
a body (10) extending from an entry end (80a) to an exit end (18), said body having a hollow cavity (20) from the entry end to the exit end to create a continuous interior section (Figure 2);
the entry end (80a) including interior threads (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) for securing to a source of liquid (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The threading is capable of being used to secure to a liquid source), the entry end having an entry ring (88) positioned above the interior threads (Figure 2, the ring is above the threads in the downstream direction), wherein the entry ring extends towards the centerline of the interior section (The entry ring protrudes from a perimeter toward the centerline of the interior section);
a handle (84) secured to the outside of the body (Figures 2 and 3), said handle including a pair of diametrically opposed rods attaching to the body (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2), a ball valve (82) positioned in the interior section of the body (Figure 2) and secured to the pair of diametrically opposed rods that are attached to the handle (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2), and the ball valve having a channel opening (82c): (a) configured to align with the interior section when the handle is in an opened configuration, such that a liquid flowing into the entry end traverses the interior section through the channel opening of the ball valve to the exit end, and (b) configured to close off the liquid when the handle is moved to a closed configuration (Paragraphs 32-33), but fails to disclose the exit end including a pair of nozzles with slotted orifices, the nozzles being in fluid communication with the interior section, the pair of nozzle being tapered in a narrowing configuration towards the slotted orifices to increase the pressure of the liquid as it is ejected.
Dickner discloses a spray nozzle that includes an exit end (30), including a pair of nozzles (102, 108) with slotted orifices (103, 109), the nozzles being in fluid communication with an interior section (the interior section of housing 14), the pair of nozzle being tapered in a narrowing configuration (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3, “tapered portion”) towards the slotted orifices (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3) to increase the pressure of the liquid as it is ejected (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The tapered portion cooperates with the wall of the membrane to stabilize the wall of the membrane, thus increasing the pressure of the liquid).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoops with the disclosures of Dickner, providing the nozzle to include includes the exit end (Stoops, 18), including a pair of nozzles (Dickner, 102, 108) with slotted orifices (Dickner, 103, 109), the nozzles being in fluid communication with the interior section (Stoops, Figure 2), the pair of nozzle being tapered in a narrowing configuration (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3, “tapered portion”) towards the slotted orifices (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3) to increase the pressure of the liquid as it is ejected (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The tapered portion cooperates with the wall of the membrane to stabilize the wall of the membrane, thus increasing the pressure of the liquid), in order to provide for a known structure that provides for spraying of fluid with a desired character.
Regarding claim 10, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of claim 9, wherein the interior section is divided into a first section, a second section, and a third section, wherein:" the first section is configured between the entry end and the ball valve and narrows towards the ball valve (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1); " the second section is configured between the ball valve and the exit end and expands outwardly towards the third section (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1); and " the third section extends from the exit end to the slotted nozzles and narrows towards the exit end (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3, The flaps of the nozzle provide for a narrowing of the exit end).
Regarding claim 11, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of claim 10, wherein the handle is configured to move to an intermediate position such that the channel opening of the ball valve is neither fully aligned nor fully closed off, thereby reducing the flow of a liquid from the entry end to the exit end (The member is a shut-off ball that is capable of being rotated to various positions between a fully open and shut off position, which reduces the flow of liquid).
Regarding claim 12, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of claim 8, wherein the slotted nozzles are configured to create a spray or wall of liquid when ejected (The nozzles are capable of spraying liquid).
Claim(s) 3, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoops in view of Dickner and Howerton (US 7,647,944).
Regarding claim 3, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of Claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the body, handle, and ball valve are integrally molded from a semi-rigid material selected from the group consisting of plastic, polypropylene, and thermoplastic rubber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to make the body, handle, and ball valve integral since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has been formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
The limitation “molded from a semi-rigid material” is a product by process limitation. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. ---. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Howerton discloses a device wherein a body (Column 3, line 32), ball (Column 5, lines 4-6), and handle (Column 5, lines 4-6) are made from a plastic material (Column 5, lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the body, ball and handle from a plastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Regarding claim 9, Stoops in view of Dickner discloses the unitary single molded spray nozzle of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the body, handle, and ball valve are integrally molded from a semi-rigid material selected from the group consisting of plastic, polypropylene, and thermoplastic rubber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to make the body, handle, and ball valve integral since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has been formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
The limitation “molded from a semi-rigid material” is a product by process limitation. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. ---. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Howerton discloses a device wherein a body (Column 3, line 32), ball (Column 5, lines 4-6), and handle (Column 5, lines 4-6) are made from a plastic material (Column 5, lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the body, ball and handle from a plastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Regarding claim 13, Stoops discloses a unitary single molded spray nozzle, comprising:
a body (10) extending from an entry (80a) to an exit end (18) with a hollow cavity (20);
the entry (80a) includes threads (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) for securing to a source of liquid (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The threading is capable of being used to secure to a liquid source);
a handle (84) is secured to the outside of the body (Figures 2 and 3), by a pair of diametrically opposed rods (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2),
a ball valve (82) is positioned within the body (Figure 2) and secured to the pair of rods (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2), the ball valve having a channel (82c) configured to open when the handle is in an opened configuration to permit a liquid to flow from the entry to the exit, and configured to close off the liquid when the handle is moved to a closed configuration (Paragraphs 32-33), but fails to disclose the exit end including a pair of nozzles with slotted orifices, wherein the body, handle, and ball valve are integrally molded from a semi-rigid material selected from the group consisting of plastic, polypropylene, and thermoplastic rubber.
Dickner discloses a spray nozzle that includes an exit (30), including a pair of nozzles (102, 108) with slotted orifices (103, 109).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoops with the disclosures of Dickner, providing the nozzle to include include the exit (Stoops, 18), including a pair of nozzles (Dickner, 102, 108) with slotted orifices (Dickner, 103, 109), in order to provide for a known structure that provides for spraying of fluid with a desired character.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to make the body, handle, and ball valve integral since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has been formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
The limitation “molded from a semi-rigid material” is a product by process limitation. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. ---. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Howerton discloses a device wherein a body (Column 3, line 32), ball (Column 5, lines 4-6), and handle (Column 5, lines 4-6) are made from a plastic material (Column 5, lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the body, ball and handle from a plastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
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