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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered. All previous objections/112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and its dependents and claim 12 and its dependents are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 16, the phrase “is having” should be changed to “has”. In claim 12, the word “nuzzle” should be changed to “nozzle”. In claim 5, lines 1-2, the phrase “an intersection” should be changed to “the intersection”. In claim 6, line 2, the phrase “an intersection” should be changed to “the intersection”. In claim 7, line 2, the phrase “an intersection” should be changed to “the intersection”. In claim 14, line 14, the phrase “an intersection” should be changed to “the intersection”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and no new matter should be entered. In reviewing the Drawings submitted on 8/19/2025, Examiner has made the determination that these Figures present new matter, not previously disclosed. Specifically, the new matter relates to the various valve components depicted that are beyond what was originally introduced in the claims (claim 13, 8/6/2024) and the specification (paragraph 55, 8/6/2024) but not depicted anywhere in the originally filed drawings (8/6/2024). In the original presentation, mention was made in a general sense of the existence of a non-return valve. While Examiner requested some depiction be made of such a valve, the current depiction in the drawings and description in the claims is beyond a basic non-return valve concept allowed from the originally presented claim and specification. Current Drawings 1C and 1D introduce additional elements such as a spring, a sealing washer, a ball element and step shape drill hole which were never included in the original presentation and will therefore not be entered due. As such these drawings introduce new matter and will not be entered.
Examiner also notes the “fourth section” claimed in claim 17 but not yet depicted in the Figures. Examiner requests that some rudimentary depiction of the fourth section be made in the Figures without introducing new matter so as to better clarify the relationship between the fourth section and the second section.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the new matter relates to the various valve components depicted that are beyond what was originally introduced in the claims (claim 13, 8/6/2024) and the specification (paragraph 55, 8/6/2024) but not depicted anywhere in the originally filed drawings (8/6/2024). In the original presentation, mention was only made in a general sense of the existence of a non-return valve. While Examiner requested some depiction be made of such a valve, the current depiction in the drawings and description in the claims is beyond a basic non-return valve concept allowed from the originally presented claim and specification. Current Drawings 1C and 1D and claim 1 introduce additional elements such as a spring, a sealing washer, a ball element and step shape drill hole which were never included in the original presentation and will therefore not be entered due. As such, claim 1 is viewed as introducing new matter and thereby failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 12 and its dependents and claims 25-26 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 12 recites for the second section terminating in a blade-edge tip. However, claim 17 recites for a fourth section which is connected to the second section to also have a narrow blade edge shape. Are these two blade portions one and the same? Or different. From the specification it appears that the fourth section is not depicted in the Figure which hampers the understanding of these two claims. Examiner requests clarification and will assume that the end of the second section and the fourth section are one and the same for purposes of this examination. Additionally, claim 19 introduces a suction chamber with associated elements; however, a suction chamber is already mentioned in claim 12 and contains the elements of a first/middle/second section. Are these two mentions of the suction chamber the same? Or different? Examiner requests clarification.
Claim 25 introduces the valve components of a spring, ball and sealing washer; however, these elements were previously recited in claim 1. Examiner is unsure whether these are new elements unrelated to the previously recited elements in claim 1 or whether they are one and the same. Examiner requests clarification on this matter.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 10-11 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tritz (US 1,677,995) in view of JPH0622600U (‘600) as further evidenced by Spencer (US 3143131A).
Claim 1: Tritz discloses a double nozzle to provide a maximum suction pressure (Fig. 2), the double nozzle comprising a first portion comprising an intersection having at least three-ways (see Figure below); a second portion (see Figure below) comprising a suction tube having a first section (note 43 or 7 could be selected), a second section (note section around 44), and a third section (41), the second section being configured to inject a secondary fluid coaxially at a centerline of a primary fluid low within the first portion (Fig. 2), the second section terminating in a blade-edge tip (Fig. 2, note sharp-edged front of 44), and the third section (41) being configured to adjust (via threaded bore of 42) a position of the second section within the first portion; and a third portion (see Figure below) comprising a suction chamber having a first section (38), a middle section (39), and a second section (13), the first section of the suction chamber accommodating the second section of the second portion to define a mixing area and configured such that the mixed fluid flows into the middle section of the suction chamber and second sections of the suction chamber (Fig. 2), wherein the surface area of the first section of the suction chamber is different from that of the second section of the suction chamber to create a maximum suction pressure at the centerline of the primary fluid flow (Fig. 2). Tritz is not explicit about the suction tube having an internal step-shape drill hole configured to accommodate components of a one-way valve including at least a spring, at least a sealing washer and at least a ball element. However, ‘600 teaches a similarly arranged pump whose suction tube utilizes an internal step-shape drill hole (note step-shaped drill hole—series of different diameters—of 4 in Fig. 1 or 21 in Fig. 2 near 13) to accommodate a one-way valve (Figs. 1-2, note paragraph 7, which states “a check valve…can be attached to the pipe joints 13 and 17” and, alternatively, that a solenoid valve can be integrated with the suction tube). While not explicit about the details of the associated valve, numerous examples exist, as detailed by Spencer, which teaches a one-way solenoid valve which utilizes a spring (17), at least a sealing washer (e.g., note gasket sealing rings 24) and at least a ball element (60). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a valve suggested by ‘600 and further detailed by Spencer in the apparatus of Tritz as a means to prevent fluid backflow when the device is turned off and preventing unwanted fluid traveling upstream of the apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Tritz and ‘600 teach the previous limitations. Tritz further discloses that in the suction tube an outer diameter of the first section is larger than an outer diameter of the second section (Fig. 1).
Claim 3: Tritz and ‘600 teach the previous limitations. Tritz further discloses that in the suction tube, an inner diameter of the first section is equal or larger than the inner diameter of the second section (note small diameter holes 36 that penetrate through to the inside of the second portion; the inner diameter 44 is larger).
Claim 5: Tritz and ‘600 teach the previous limitations. Tritz further discloses that a first way of an intersection (note intersection near 8/23) having at least three ways is configured to introduce the primary fluid into the double nozzle.
Claim 6: Tritz and ‘600 teach the previous limitations. Tritz further discloses that the second portion of the double nozzle is mounted within a second way intersection of an intersection having at least three ways (Fig. 1).
Claim 7: Tritz and ‘600 teach the previous limitations. Tritz further discloses that the third portion of the double nozzle is fixed into a third way of an intersection having at least three ways (Fig. 1).
Claim 10: Tritz and ‘600 teach the previous limitations. Tritz further discloses that the secondary fluid and the primary fluid have a same pressure or a different pressure and a same temperature or different temperature (Fig. 1).
Claim 11: Tritz and ‘600 teach the previous limitations. Tritz further discloses that the secondary fluid and the primary fluid each comprise a liquid, a particulate solid, or a gas, or any combinations thereof (Fig. 1).
Claim 24: Tritz and ‘600 teach the previous limitations. Tritz further discloses that an inner diameter of the first section of the second portion is equal or larger than the second section of the second portion (note small diameter holes 36 that penetrate through to the inside of the second portion; the inner diameter 44 is larger) and the second portion of the double nozzle further comprises a third section (41) wherein the third section is configured to adjust the second section of the second portion (via threads at 42) in an appropriate position inside the first portion of the double nozzle (this subject matter is redundant and was discussed in claim 1).
Claim(s) 12, 14-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US20110232773) in view of Tritz (US 1,677,995) and in further view of Hooker (US 511,079).
Claim 12: Wright discloses a plumbing system (see paragraphs 2 and 58-59) for providing a maximum suction pressure to mix a secondary fluid to a primary flow (Figs. 1-3), the plumbing system comprising at least one double nozzle comprising a three way intersections tube (Fig. 1, note 2), a suction tube (one or both of 12/13), and a suction chamber (18/20), at least one container (paragraph 83, cistern), which may be pressurized or non-pressurized, containing a secondary fluid comprising at least one main body (the cistern container/body itself) and at least one secondary fluid conduit (17) configured to conduct the secondary fluid into the suction tube of the double nozzle; and at least one mixed fluid conduit (24) configured to conduct a mixed fluid from the suction chamber of the double nozzle into at least one sanitary device (paragraph 83, note associated toilet), wherein the injectable fluid injects into the double nozzle due to the maximum suction pressure provided by the suction tube of the double nozzle and mixed at a central point of the current flow to obtain the mixed fluid and the mixed fluid transferred into the suction chamber (as can be appreciated from Figs. 1-2).
Wright is not explicit about the particulars of the suction tube comprises a first section, a second section, and a third section, the second section terminating in a blade-edge tip and being configured to inject the secondary fluid coaxially at a centerline of the primary flow, and the third section being configured to adjust a position of the second section within the three-way intersections tube, and wherein the suction chamber comprises a first section, a middle section, and a second section, the first section accommodating the second section of the suction tube to define a mixing area, wherein a surface area of the first section of the suction chamber differs from that of the second section to create a maximum suction pressure at the centerline, and wherein the suction tube is mounted within a second way of an intersection having at least three-ways and the suction chamber is mounted within the third way of an intersection having at least three-ways; at least one flow conduit configured to conduct the primary fluid into the double nozzle through a first way of an intersection having at least three ways. However, Tritz teaches a three way intersections tube which utilizes a first section (note 43 or 7 could be selected), a second section (note section around 44), and a third section (41), the second section terminating in a blade-edge tip (Fig. 2, note sharp-edged front of 44) and being configured to inject the secondary fluid coaxially at a centerline of the primary flow (Fig. 2), and the third section (41) being configured to adjust a position of the second section within the three-way intersections tube (via threaded bore of 42), and wherein the suction chamber comprises a first section (38), a middle section (39), and a second section (13), the first section accommodating the second section of the suction tube to define a mixing area (Fig. 2), wherein a surface area of the first section of the suction chamber differs from that of the second section to create a maximum suction pressure at the centerline (Fig. 2), and wherein the suction tube is mounted within a second way of an intersection having at least three-ways (Fig. 2) and the suction chamber is mounted within the third way of an intersection having at least three-ways (Fig. 2); at least one flow conduit configured to conduct the primary fluid into the double nozzle through a first way of an intersection having at least three ways (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the double nozzle of Tritz for that of Wright as it involves mere substation of an element for that of another with a predictable expectation of success.
Wright is not explicit about the secondary fluid being entrained into the primary flow at the centerline under the maximum suction pressure. However, Hooker teaches a double nozzle arrangement in which its suction tube/second portion (B) is movably adjustable (see page 1, col. 1, lines 10-12; col. 2, lines 80-85) to vary the effective force of the nozzle; such an arrangements incorporated into Wright from Hooker would allow for the nozzle to be positioned in a way that the secondary fluid being entrained into the primary flow at the centerline under the maximum suction pressure. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the adjustable features of the suction tube/second portion as taught by Hooker into the apparatus of Wright in order to vary the effective force of the nozzle for different situational needs.
Claim 14: Wright, Tritz and Hooker teach the previous limitations. Tritz further discloses that the suction tube of the double nozzle comprises a first portion (see Figure above) and a second portion (see Figure above) wherein an outer diameter of the first portion is larger than an outer diameter of the second portion (Fig. 2) and the first portion of the suction tube is positioned inside the first way intersection of the at least three way intersections tube of the double nozzle (Fig. 2).
Claim 15: Wright, Tritz and Hooker teach the previous limitations. Tritz further teaches that an inner diameter of the first portion is equal or smaller than an inner diameter of the second portion (Fig. 2).
Claim 16: Wright, Tritz and Hooker teach the previous limitations. Tritz further teaches that the suction tube further comprising a third portion mounted around a peripheral area of the first portion of the suction tube (see Figure above) wherein the third portion is configured to adjust an appropriate position of the first portion of the suction tube inside the double nozzle for creating a maximum suction pressure (via threaded portion of 42).
Claim 17: Wright, Tritz and Hooker teach the previous limitations. Tritz further teaches that the suction tube further comprising a fourth section (note conical tip end around 44) wherein the fourth portion is connected to the second section of the suction tube (Fig. 2), wherein the fourth section has a simple circular shape, a convergence conic circular shape, a divergence conic circular shape, or a narrow blade edge shape (Fig. 2).
Claim 18: Wright, Tritz and Hooker teach the previous limitations. Tritz further teaches that a taper convergence angle of the fourth portion is in a range of 0 to 180 degree in accordance with a longitudinal axis of the suction tube (Fig. 2).
Claim 19: Wright, Tritz and Hooker teach the previous limitations. Tritz further teaches that the suction chamber comprises a first section (38), a middle section (39), and a second section (13) wherein the second section of the suction chamber is positioned nearby or encompassed the second section of the suction tube to provide a mixing area (Fig. 2)
Claim 20: Wright, Tritz and Hooker teach the previous limitations. Tritz further teaches that a surface area design of the first section of the suction chamber is different from a surface area design of the second section of the suction chamber (Fig. 2).
Claim 21: Wright, Tritz and Hooker teach the previous limitations. Wright further discloses that a temperature of the injecting fluid (cistern) is less than a temperature of the current flow (rainwater) in the sense that rainwater sourced from outside and exposed to colder temperatures (e.g., in the evening) will be cooler than domestic mains water temperatures which are usually warmed by being located in-ground or inside a building.
Claim 23: Wright, Tritz and Hooker teach the previous limitations. Wright further discloses that the injectable fluid and the current flow have a same pressure and same temperature, a same pressure and a different temperature, a different pressure and a same temperature, or different pressure and different temperature (Examiner notes that the injectable fluid and the current fluid will have to have a different pressure and either the same or different temperature).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US20110232773) in view of Tritz (US 1,677,995) and Hooker (US 511,079) and in further view of JPH0622600U (‘600).
Claim 13: Wright discloses the previous limitations but does not disclose a non-return valve positioned between the container and the suction tube to prevent return back the secondary fluid to the container. However, ‘600 discloses a similar device which includes a non-return valve positioned upstream of an associated suction tube (see paragraph 8). As incorporated into Wright, this valve arrangement would be positioned between the container and the suction tube which would prevent return back the injectable fluid to the container. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the valve arrangement of ‘600 into the system of Wright in order to prevent contaminated mixed fluid from entering the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has challenged Applicant’s newest drawings and claim amendments relating to associated valve components on the basis that they are new matter. Further, in this latest amendment, it would appear that some of the subject matter is being used repeatedly (e.g., the suction chamber mentioned in claims 12 and 17 or the valve components in claims 1 and 25-26) which has caused additional 112 issues. Examiner has additionally supplied the Spencer reference to read upon some of the new claim limitations while additionally relying upon Tritz in other amended claims not previously treated under Tritz. Based upon the current claim limitations, Examiner believes that Tritz is still adequately suited for use in Applicant’s claims and Examiner notes that the threaded interface is not entirely permanent but could still accommodate adjustment after assembly. While Applicant’s stresses the differences between Tritz and the Application ejector device, Examiner has not seen material differences expressed in the claim language to warrant and exclusion of the Tritz reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746