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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on September 2, 2026. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. Claim 9 has been canceled. Claim 13 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art to Gopalan fails to read on the new limitations “wherein a floor formed on the major facing includes a stepped section arranged transverse to the centerline axis of the body and configured to demarcate a transition from the inlet to the outlet.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in figure 13 in Gopalan’s invention, Gopalan does disclose a stepped section 40b that is arranged transverse to the centerline axis of the body and configured to demarcate a transition from the inlet to the outlet (Col. 7 lines 20-23). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gopalan (US 7,651,036 B2).
With regard to claim 1, Gopalan discloses a fluid insert (Fig. 5A) for producing an oscillating spray pattern at low temperatures, the insert comprising: a body defining an inlet (28) positioned within an upper portion of the body (Fig. 5A) and an outlet (30) positioned at a lower edge the body so that fluid flows in a common spatial plane along a major facing of the body from the inlet to the outlet (Fig. 5A); a major island (structures between nozzles 24) and a minor island (34) each formed symmetrically on the major facing around a centerline axis of the body (Fig. 5A) and wherein the major island: i) is positioned closer to the inlet (28) in comparison to the minor island (Fig. 5A), ii) includes a lower edge that is spaced apart from an upper edge of the minor island (34) so as to define an exchange channel (Fig. 5A), and iii) has a larger maximum transverse width in comparison to the minor island (Fig. 5A); an interaction chamber (26) positioned between the inlet (28) and the outlet (30) and having: i) an upper facing defined by a lower edge of the minor island (34), and ii) a lower facing including a pair of straight edge wall sections emanating in opposite directions from an opening defining the outlet (30, Fig. 5A), extending perpendicular to the centerline axis for a wall distance (Fig. 5A), and thereafter curving axially upward to define opposing protuberances; and opposing power nozzles (24) defined by the opposing protuberances and opposing transverse ends of the major island (Fig. 5A); and wherein the power nozzles each direct a fluid jet toward opposing transverse ends of the minor island (34), and wherein a floor formed on the major facing includes a stepped section (40b) arranged transverse to the centerline axis of the body (Fig. 13) and configured to demarcate a transition from the inlet to the outlet (Col. 7 lines 20-23).
With regard to claim 2, the fluid insert of Gopalan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gopalan further discloses that that the minor island (34) is a crescent, a C-shape, or a speed bump-shape (the shape of 34 shown in Fig. 5A has a crescent or speed bump-shape like structure).
With regard to claim 4, the fluid insert of Gopalan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gopalan further discloses that the lower edge of the major island (structures between nozzles 24) is spaced apart from the upper edge of the minor island (34) at a substantially constant distance along all of the exchange channel (Fig. 5A).
With regard to claim 5, the fluid insert of Gopalan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gopalan further discloses that the interaction chamber (26) has a reverse mushroom configuration (Fig. 5A).
With regard to claim 6, the fluid insert of Gopalan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gopalan further discloses that the wall distance is equal to or up to three times greater than an outlet distance defined by a narrowest point between the pair of straight edge wall sections defining the outlet (Fig. 5A shows wall distance is within three times greater than outlet distance).
With regard to claim 7, the fluid insert of Gopalan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gopalan further discloses that the opposing transverse ends of the major island are positioned axially closer to the lower edge of the body in comparison to the opposing protuberances (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
748
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 10, the fluid insert of Gopalan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gopalan further discloses that fluid from the inlet (28) flows around both of the transverse opposing ends the major island so as produce a pair of vortices within the interaction chamber (26) and wherein the vortices alternate in strength so as to create an oscillating spray in the fluid that is ejected from the outlet (Fig. 5A).
With regard to claim 11, the fluid insert of Gopalan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gopalan further discloses that the exchange channel serves as an inertance loop that is alternatively fed by only one of the power nozzles so as to sustain an oscillating spray in the fluid that is ejected from the outlet (Col. 5 lines 42-51).
With regard to claim 12, the fluid insert of Gopalan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gopalan further discloses that a bulbous depression (see annotated figure above) is interposed between each straight edge wall section and the corresponding protuberance associated there (Fig. 5A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalan in view of Srinath et al. (US 7,293,722 B1).
With regard to claim 3, the fluid insert of Gopalan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gopalan does not explicitly disclose that the opposing transverse ends of the minor island include thickened portions to impart a serif-style C-shape.
However, Gopalan teaches the triangular shape has been selected as a first preferred embodiment for this minor island 34 and other shapes are possible (Col. 5 lines 37-39).
Srinath teaches a fluidic insert comprising an island (Fig. 1), wherein the opposing transverse ends of the island include thickened portions to impart a serif-style C-shape (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the minor island of Gopalan, by incorporating the structural shape as taught by Srinath in figure 1, doing it would result different flow pattern in the system and change intensity of the a sweeping jet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
