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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “7” has been used to designate both the apertures on the first effect attachment 1 and the apertures of the second effect attachment 2. Examiner notes that these are structurally different parts, as such they should be labeled differently. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification uses the label “7” to refer to the apertures of the first effect attachment 1 and the apertures of the second effect attachment 2. Examiner notes that these are structurally different features, as such they should have distinct labels in the drawings and specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 23 should read: further comprising jet guiding elements (10) directed radially outwards, which are connected to the separating elements (9).
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “separating elements” in claims 22 and 23. This term satisfies the three-prong test because A) it uses a generic place holder “element”; B) it is modified by functional language: they separate the apertures of the effect attachment; and C) it is not modified by any structure in the claims.
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 separating elements as separating webs. Examiner will interpret them as such, or equivalent thereof.
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: “jet guiding elements” in claim 23. This term satisfies the three-prong test because A) it uses a generic place holder “element”; B) it is modified by functional language: they guide the jets; and C) it is not modified by any structure in the claims.
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 does not provide any specific structure as to what encompasses the jet guiding elements. As such, this term is indefinite and is rejected under 112(b), see below.
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.
Claims 18-34 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 18 discloses “A fountain attachment” in the preamble, and “at least one effect attachment” in the body of the claim. It is unclear if the fountain attachment has an effect attachment or if the effect attachment is the same as the fountain attachment. This renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
Claim 18 discloses: “an adjustable nozzle for producing dynamic water images at a nozzle outlet comprising of a nozzle…” The claim discloses an adjustable nozzle in line 1 and a nozzle in line 2. It is unclear if these are distinct features of if they are the same. If they are the same, the nozzle of line 2 should be disclosed as said nozzle. Nonetheless, this ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 18 discloses the term “goblet-like” which is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “goblet” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes that goblets can have a variety of different overall shapes. As such this term is not well defined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 18 discloses: “at least one effect attachment which… has a plurality of apertures which divide a goblet-like water jet into individual jets”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how a goblet-like water jet, which is interpreted as the resulting spray pattern of the fountain, can then be further modified into individual jets. Another way to interpret this limitation would be if a goblet-like water jet is produced within the adjustable nozzle, such that the apertures modify the jets as individual jets as the water is leaving the fountain. This ambiguity renders the claim further indefinite. For examination purposes and based on disclosure, Examiner will interpret this limitation as: at least one effect attachment which… has a plurality of apertures which produce a goblet-like water jet divided into individual jets.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as: a region.
Claims 19-34 are indefinite for depending on claim 18.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the effect element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret this as the effect attachment that is introduced in independent claim 18.
Claim 23 includes the limitation “jet guiding elements” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide any structure regarding what encompasses this feature. Although, the specification discloses that the jet guiding elements “can be designed in a shovel-like manner”, this is not enough structure to define this term. Moreover, “shovel-like” is considered a relative term, which is also indefinite. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 24 is indefinite for depending on claim 23.
Claim 24 discloses the term “shovel-like” which is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shovel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes that shovels can have a variety of different shapes. As such this term is not well defined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 25 discloses: “wherein the effect attachment is an effect ring”. However, it is not clear what an “effect ring” is and the specification does not provide a special definition for this term. For examination purposes and based on disclosure, Examiner will interpret this claim as: wherein the effect attachment is ring shaped.
Claim 27 discloses: “at least one effect attachment which is detachably connected to the inner nozzle body in the region of the nozzle outlet and has a plurality of apertures…” However, an “effect attachment” and “a plurality of apertures” are already disclosed in independent claim 18. As such, it is unclear if there are one or more than one effect attachments and one or more than one set of plurality of apertures. This renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required. For examination purposes and based in disclosure, Examiner will interpret the claim as: a second effect attachment which is detachably connected to the inner nozzle body in the region of the nozzle outlet and has a second plurality of apertures.
Claims 28-32 are indefinite for depending on claim 27. For examination purposes, references to the “effect attachment” and the “plurality of apertures” in these claims will be interpreted as the second effect attachment and the second plurality of apertures, as stated above.
Claim 30 discloses: “wherein the outlet channels are each arranged inclined with respect to a radial”. It is unclear what “a radial” means or encompasses. This renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this will be considered as a radial direction.
Claim 32 discloses: “wherein the effect attachment closes the nozzle at the nozzle outlet”. It is unclear how the effect attachment can close the nozzle at the nozzle outlet, since the nozzle outlet is meant to operate as a water exit. The word “close” renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret this limitation as the effect attachment being placed in the nozzle outlet.
Claim 33 discloses: “wherein the outer nozzle tube and its inner nozzle body are designed to be displaceable relative to one another in a longitudinal direction of the nozzle to adjust the nozzle, in particular by rotating the outer nozzle tube around the inner nozzle body, wherein a guide contour translates the rotation into a coaxial displacement.” This claim recites limitations that are followed by “in particular”. This language makes it unclear if the proceeding limitations are positively claimed or not. Examiner notes that “in particular” is interpreted as alternate language. As such, the limitations of: “by rotating the outer nozzle tube around the inner nozzle body, wherein a guide contour translates the rotation into a coaxial displacement” are considered optional, i.e. not positively recited in the claim.
Claims 18-34 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as stated above. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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 18-26 and 33-34 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wesselmeier (U.S. 2016/0082448) in view of Bell et al (U.S. 2022/0297139).
Regarding claim 18, Wesselmeier teaches a fountain attachment (as best understood, the fountain attachment is defined as a whole by upper parts seen in Fig 1, which attach to the top of inner tube 2 and outer tube 4) for water features (as disclosed in abstract) having an adjustable nozzle (defined by adjustable nozzle head 8) for producing dynamic water images at a nozzle outlet (outlet defined by 13 and 14) comprising of a nozzle (9) having at least one outer nozzle tube (4) and one inner nozzle body (11), including at least one effect attachment (deflector 10) which is detachably connected to the outer nozzle tube (Par 0020 discloses the deflector being movable along the outer nozzle tube 4; Examiner notes that if the attachment is movable, it can also be detached with the use of force or tools; the claim remains broad with regards to how the attachment attaches and detaches from the outer nozzle tube) in a region of the nozzle outlet (as seen in Fig 1, the top end of attachment 10 is in the region of nozzle outlet 14), wherein the attachment creates a goblet-like water jet (as best understood, as seen in Fig 2, the water jet that exits the nozzle outlet is goblet-like).
However, Wesselmeier does not teach the effect attachment having a plurality of apertures which divide the goblet-like water jet into individual jets.
Bell teaches a water sprayer apparatus that has an effect attachment (lower member 64) that includes a plurality of apertures (apertures defined by the spaces in between ribs 69, which include ribs 110, 112 and 114).
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 Wesselmeier to incorporate the teachings of Bell to provide a plurality of apertures defined on the effect attachment in order to create a fluid jet that increases the distance and coverage of the spray pattern (as disclosed in Par 0253 of Bell). This would be beneficial to the water fountain of Wesselmeier by creating a bigger display, which would be appealing to spectators. In combination, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the claimed structure; as such, they are deemed capable of splitting the jet into individual jets, as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 18, wherein the plurality of apertures of the effect attachment are of different sizes and/or different shapes (Par 0227 and Fig 11 of Bell teaches the ribs 69, which include ribs 110 and 112, of different sizes and shapes; as such, their respective apertures defined in between the ribs are of different sizes and shapes).
Regarding claim 20, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 18, wherein the plurality of apertures of the effect attachment have different heights (Par 0225 and Fig 11 of Bell teach the ribs having different heights; as such, their respective apertures defined in between the ribs are of different heights).
Regarding claim 21, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 18, wherein the plurality of apertures of the effect attachment are located at different heights of the effect attachment in a longitudinal direction of the nozzle (as seen in Fig 11 of Bell, since the apertures are defined in between the ribs 69, which include ribs 110, 112 and 114, and since the ribs are defined along different heights along the effect element 64; the apertures are considered to be located along different heights of the effect element, as claimed).
Regarding claim 22, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 18, wherein the apertures of the effect attachment are spaced apart from one another by separating elements (ribs 69, i.e. webs, which include ribs 110, 112 and 114, of Bell are separating elements, as seen at least in Figs 11-12) which taper radially inwards towards a center of the nozzle outlet (as seen in Fig 13 of Bell, the separating elements such as ribs 112, have a surface 113 that tapers radially inwards, i.e. towards the central axis 89, in an upwards direction) (Examiner notes that the direction and way in which the separating element tapers is broadly claimed).
Regarding claim 23, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 22, further comprising jet guiding elements (as best understood, shown below) directed radially outwards (as shown below), are connected to the separating elements (as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
379
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 22, further comprising jet guiding elements that are shovel-like (as best understood since shovel-like is indefinite, the jet guiding elements, shown above, have a rounded tip that resembles the tip of a shovel).
Regarding claim 25, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 18, wherein the effect attachment is an effect ring (as best understood, as seen in Fig 11A of Bell, the effect attachment has the shape of a ring; the effect attachment 10 of Wesselmeier is also ring shaped, see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 26, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 18, wherein the effect attachment is screwed onto the outer nozzle tube (the effect attachment 64 of Bell has internal threads 68, as seen in Fig 13. It would be obvious to configure the effect attachment to use threads, i.e. be screwed, onto the outlet nozzle tube 4 of Wesselmeier, since the threads give the user more control to accurately slide the effect attachment up or down to widen or narrow the nozzle outlet. As such, in combination, the threads 68 would engage the outer nozzle tube 4 of Wesselmeier such that the effect attachment is screwed onto the outer tube, as claimed).
Regarding claim 33, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 18, wherein the outer nozzle tube and its inner nozzle body are designed to be displaceable relative to one another in a longitudinal direction of the nozzle to adjust the nozzle (the inner nozzle body 11 and the outlet nozzle tube 4 of Wesselmeier are designed to be longitudinally displace with respect to one another to adjust the size of the nozzle 13, as disclosed in Par 0020 of Wesselmeier), in particular by rotating the outer nozzle tube around the inner nozzle body, wherein a guide contour translates the rotation into a coaxial displacement (as stated in the 112(b) rejection above, these limitations are optional and not positively recited; as such, the prior art does not need to teach this features in order to read on claim language).
Regarding claim 34, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 18, wherein the inner nozzle body is formed with an inner nozzle tube (the inner nozzle body 11 is formed with an inner nozzle tube 2, by means of centering aid 15, as seen in Fig 1 of Wesselmeier) and the inner and the outer nozzle tubes are connected to two independently controllable pumps which allow a variable and mutually independent supply of water (through inlets 5 and 6, see Fig 1 of Wesselmeier) for adjusting the nozzle (the inner nozzle tube 2 and the outer nozzle tube 4 each have an independent inlet 5 and 6, respectively; Par 0019 of Wesselmeier discloses separate pumps for each inlet; Par 0021 discloses the pumps being individually controlled to adjust the pattern leaving the nozzle).
Claims 27-32 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wesselmeier (U.S. 2016/0082448) in view of Bell et al (U.S. 2022/0297139); further in view of Dane (U.S. 2020/0254466).
Regarding claim 27, Wesselmeier and Bell teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 18. However, they do not teach the device further comprising a second effect attachment which is detachably connected to the inner nozzle body in the region of the nozzle outlet and has a second plurality of apertures which divide a central water jet into a plurality of individual jets.
Dane teaches a nozzle system for a water fountain (see abstract and Figs 24-27) comprising an effect attachment (defined by 30) which is detachably connected to an inner nozzle body (base 32, which is partially positioned inside portion 40, i.e. it is considered inner; wherein attachment 30 is detachably connected to inner nozzle body 32 by way of fasteners 100) in a region of a nozzle outlet (30 is placed in the downstream end of portion 40, considered the nozzle outlet, as best understood) and has a plurality of apertures (apertures of nozzles 38) which divide a central water jet into a plurality of individual jets (the apertures of nozzles 38 divide a central water jet, i.e. water flow in portion 40, into individual jets 90, as seen at least in Figs 17, 24 and 25 and Par 0058).
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 Wesselmeier and Bell to incorporate the teachings of Dane to provide a second effect attachment as the inner nozzle body in order to make use of individual jets that can be oriented in any desired angle, thus allowing the user to create unlimited number of possible resulting fountains or other visual water displays, spray patterns, or designs (as disclosed in abstract of Dane).
Regarding claim 28, Wesselmeier, Bell and Dane teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 27, wherein the second effect attachment connected to the inner nozzle body is a nozzle plate which is perforated by the second apertures in a longitudinal direction of the nozzle (as seen in Fig 17 of Dane, the second effect attachment 30 is in the shape of a nozzle plate 34, that is perforated by the apertures of each of the 38, this is seen by flow lines 90 and 88).
Regarding claim 29, Wesselmeier, Bell and Dane teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 27, wherein the second effect attachment is designed as a rotating nozzle with outwardly directed outlet channels (as disclosed in Par 0062 of Dane, the attachment can be configured as a rotating nozzle by outwardly orienting the outlet channels of nozzles 38 at an angle to produce a tangential force that causes rotation).
Regarding claim 30, Wesselmeier, Bell and Dane teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 29, wherein the outlet channels are each arranged inclined with respect to a radial (as disclosed in Par 0062 of Dane, when the attachment is configured as a rotating nozzle the outlet channels of nozzles 38 are oriented at an angle to produce a tangential force that causes rotation, i.e. they are arranged with an angle with respect to a radial direction, as claimed).
Regarding claim 31, Wesselmeier, Bell and Dane teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 29, wherein the second effect attachment is rotatably mounted, and the arrangement of the outlet channels causes a rotation of the effect attachment when the jet is applied (as disclosed in Par 0062 of Dane, the attachment can be configured as a rotating nozzle by outwardly orienting the outlet channels of nozzles 38 at an angle to produce a tangential force that causes rotation when the jet is applied).
Regarding claim 32, Wesselmeier, Bell and Dane teach the fountain attachment according to Claim 27, wherein the second effect attachment closes the nozzle at the nozzle outlet in a longitudinal direction of the nozzle (as best understood, the effect attachment 30 is placed on the outlet of portion 40, i.e. nozzle, as seen in Fig 1 of Dane; In combination, the effect attachment 30 of Dane would be placed in place of 11 of Wesselmeier such that it is placed on the central nozzle 9).
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
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights