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 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 19 and 20 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 19 states that the second taper is from the inlet space to the restriction and claim 1 states that the second taper is from the restriction to the nozzle orifice. It is unclear which one is correct.
Claim 20 is rejected for depending from claim 19.
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, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komar (2,166,300).
Regarding claim 1, Komar shows a spray nozzle (fig 1) comprising: an inlet space (2a); a restriction (2); and a nozzle orifice (2c), the inlet space having an essentially cylindrical shape (fig 4), the restriction having an essentially circular shape (fig 4), with a contour of an inner surface of the spray nozzle tapering down in size with a first taper from the inlet space to the restriction (fig 1) and then tapering out in shape with a second taper from the restriction to the nozzle orifice (fig 2), with the nozzle orifice having a stadium shape (fig 4).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the first taper tapers continuously in shape from the inner space to the restriction (fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the second taper tapers continuously from the restriction to the nozzle orifice (fig 2).
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) 3, 4 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komar (2,166,300)
Regarding claim 3, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a ratio of length of the first taper from the inlet space to the restriction to a length of the inlet space is selected in the range of 1.8:1 to 1.4:1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Komar so that a ratio of length of the first taper from the inlet space to the restriction to a length of the inlet space is selected in the range of 1.8:1 to 1.4:1, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Komar would not operate differently with the ratio of length of the first taper from the inlet space to the restriction to a length of the inlet space is selected in the range of 1.8:1 to 1.4:1 , since the straw of Komar and the claimed nozzle are identical in every other. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed ratio range.
Regarding claim 4, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a ratio of length of the second taper from the restriction to the nozzle orifice to the first taper is selected in the range of 1:3.5 to 1:4.6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Komar so that a ratio of length of the second taper from the restriction to the nozzle orifice to the first taper is selected in the range of 1:3.5 to 1:4.6, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Komar would not operate differently with a ratio of length of the second taper from the restriction to the nozzle orifice to the first taper is selected in the range of 1:3.5 to 1:4.6, since the straw of Komar and the claimed nozzle are identical in every other. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed ratio range.
Regarding claim 15, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a length of the first taper is about 3.119mm
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Komar so that a length of the first taper is about 3.119mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Komar would not operate differently with a length of the first taper being about 3.119mm, since the straw of Komar and the claimed nozzle are identical in every other. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 16, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a length of the first taper is about 3.119mm
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Komar so that a length of the second taper is about 7.449mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Komar would not operate differently with a length of the second taper being about 7.449mm, since the straw of Komar and the claimed nozzle are identical in every other. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 17, if the modifications to the length of the first taper from claim 15 and the length of the second taper from claim 16 were performed, then a ratio of a length of the second taper to a length of the first taper is about 2.39:1.
Regarding claim 18, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, including wherein when viewed in a cross section the first taper tapers continuously in shape from the inlet space to the restriction (fig 1), but fails to disclose a first angle of about 16.5 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Komar so that the first taper formed a first angle of about 16.5 degrees, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Komar would not operate differently with the first taper forming a first angle of about 16.5 degrees since the straw of Komar and the claimed nozzle are identical in every other. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 19, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, including wherein when viewed in a cross section the second taper tapers continuously in shape from the restriction to the outlet (fig 2), but fails to disclose a second angle of about 22.7 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Komar so that the second angle of about 22.7 degrees, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Komar would not operate differently with a second angle of about 22.7 degrees since the straw of Komar and the claimed nozzle are identical in every other. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 20, if the modifications above were done to the first and second angles, a ratio of the second angle to the first angle would be about 1.38:1.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komar (2,166,300) in view of Bowen (2010/0213277).
Regarding claim 12, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, including outer threads (1a), but fails to disclose wherein an outer surface of the inlet space comprises a hose barb.
The examiner notes that Bowen teaches a nozzle where the outer surface of the inlet space (14) includes threads or a hose barb [008][0014][0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to replace the outer threads of Komar with a hose barb, as taught by Bowen, in order to connect the nozzle directly to a hose.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komar (2,166,300) in view of Sethi (11,779,938)
Regarding claim 2, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a ratio of diameter of the restriction to the cylindrical shape of the inlet space is selected in the range of 1:2 to 1:2.5.
Sethi teaches a very similar nozzle with a first taper from an inlet to a restriction (fig 29). Claim 10 states that the ratio of the area of the inlet to the area of the restrictions between 1 and 10. A ratio of areas can be chosen to be 2. This would mean a ratio of diameters would also be 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the ration between diameters of the restriction to the cylindrical shape of the inlet space 1:2, in order to increase the flow velocity by 4 times at the restriction.
Regarding claim 5, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose that a ratio of a small diameter of the nozzle orifice to a large diameter of the nozzle orifice being selected in the range of 1:8 to 1:9.
Sethi teaches a very similar nozzle that has a rectangular outlet. Sethi teaches the width of the outlet can vary from 0.05″ to 6″ and the height of the outlet can vary from 0.01″ to 6″ ( col 34, lines 31-32). This area determines the final flow rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field make the ration between diameters of the restriction to the cylindrical shape of the inlet space 1:2, in order to achieve the desired flow rate as taught by Sethi (col 34, lines 31-35).
Claim(s) 6-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komar (2,166,300) in view of Salmela (6,969,015)
Regarding claim 6, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the spray nozzle is a two-piece spray nozzle made of only two pieces.
Salmela teaches a very similar nozzle where the nozzle is made from two halves joined together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the nozzle of Komar out of two halves and join them together in order to make the nozzle more easily as taught by Salmela (col 4, lines 18-20)
Regarding claim 7, wherein the two pieces comprise a lower half shell and an upper half shell (fig 3 of Salmela shows one upper or one lower half. The other half is not shown).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the two pieces are symmetric with respect to one another (if the nozzle of Komar was cut exactly in half, the two halves would be symmetrical. Also Salmela teaches the nozzle being cut align a line of symmetry (col 2, liens 9-15).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the two pieces are asymmetric with respect to one another (the pins and holes of Salmela that align the symmetric pieces make the pieces asymmetrical (fig 3).
Regarding claim 11, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose the spray nozzle is made by one of additive manufacturing and injection molding.
However, Salmela teaches injection molding a spray nozzle similar to that of Komar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to injection mold the spray nozzle of Komar, in order to make it cheaper and lighter.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komar (2,166,300) as modified by Salmela (6,969,015) above, further in view of Cendrowicz (2018/0015532)
Regarding claim 6, Komar shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the two pieces are connected to one another via a tongue and groove connection.
Cendrowicz teaches that forming an element from tow halves and joining the two halves via a tongue and groove connection is well known [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to have the two pieces connected to one another via a tongue and groove connection as taught by Cendrowicz, in order to increase the strength of the connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Webber (3,101,906), Rutledge (2,900,851) and Komar (2,296,715) all show similar nozzles to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 4/16/2026
Prosecution Insights