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.
Claims 3, 4, 11-14 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 3 recites the limitation "the static mixing nozzle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further regarding claim 3, it is unclear whether the static mixing nozzle is positively recited or not, as it is clearly not positively recited in claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the one or more internal threads of the second tube". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-14 recites the limitation "the adapter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that these claims should depend from claim 5. All of the adapter subcomponents claimed (e.g. the adapter axis, the first adapter end, the second adapter end, etc.) also have issues but would be remedied if these claims were dependent upon claim 5.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second fluid source". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4, 12, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sandholm (6,601,782).
Regarding claim 1, Sandholm discloses a fluid nozzle comprising:
a tube (item 24) comprising a first tube end and a second tube end opposite to the first tube end (opposing ends of tube), the tube extending along a tube axis defined between the first tube end and the second tube end (axis of 24), the tube comprising:
an inlet defined at the first tube end (at 74);
an outlet defined at the second tube end (at 60);
a fluid passageway disposed within the tube and extending from the inlet to the outlet (passageway between 74 and 60);
a first portion comprising the outlet, the first portion extending from the second tube end towards the first tube end along the tube axis, the first portion at least partially defining the fluid passageway therein (see figure 1);
a second portion (see figure 2) comprising the inlet, the second portion extending from the first portion to the first tube end along the tube axis, the second portion at least partially defining the fluid passageway therein, wherein the second portion is configured to be selectively and removably connected to a first fluid source or a mixer (threaded on in figure 2); and
a manifold (item 14) configured to be detachably connected to the first portion of the tube by a snap- fit connection (col. 3, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 2, Sandholm further discloses wherein the first fluid source is a two-component adhesive (col. 5, lines 55-57), wherein the second portion of the tube is configured to couple to a static mixing nozzle (figure 2, upstream portion may be designated as a mixing nozzle) via a friction fit (capable of, see figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Sandholm further discloses wherein the static mixing nozzle comprises one or more internal threads extending from the second tube end, and wherein the one or more internal threads are configured to be threadably connected to the first fluid source (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Sandholm further discloses wherein the first fluid source is a one-component adhesive, and wherein the one or more internal threads of the second tube end are configured to be threadably connected to the first fluid source (see figure 2, source can be a single adhesive and is threadably coupled).
Regarding claim 12, Sandholm further discloses, wherein the adapter (item 82) comprises one or more internal threads (see figure 2) extending from the second adapter end, and wherein the one or more internal threads of the adapter are configured to be threadably connected to the second fluid source (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Sandholm further discloses wherein the fluid nozzle comprises a polygonal shape along a length of the second portion (baffle portions are polygonal).
Regarding claim 18, Sandholm further discloses wherein the first portion at least partially tapers in a flow direction from the first tube end to the second tube end (figure 1, at 28).
Regarding claim 19, Sandholm further discloses wherein the manifold comprises:
a first tubular portion (item 38) extending along a first axis and configured to at least partially receive the first portion of the tube therein, wherein the first tubular portion defines an air outlet (item 64) that is disposed around the outlet of the tube; and
a second tubular portion (item 53) extending from the first tubular portion along a second axis inclined to the first axis (90 degrees inclined), the second tubular portion defining an air inlet disposed in fluid communication with the first tubular portion (item 52).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandholm (6,601,782) in view of Miller (2,362,213) in further view of Pappalardo (2017/0205009).
Regarding claim 5, Sandholm further discloses an adapter (item 82) functionally connected to the first and second portion of the tube but fails to teach the further details of the adapter in relation to the third portion and a third portion of the tube.
Miller teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor having a third portion (item 26) extending from the first tube end towards the second tube end along the tube axis, the third portion at least partially surrounding and connected to the second portion (surrounding 23) ,the third portion comprising a cylindrical section extending along a length of the third portion and at least one first coupling element disposed on the cylindrical section (item 31 construed as a coupling section); and, wherein the fluid nozzle further comprises:
an adapter (item 32) configured to be selectively and removably connected to the third portion of the tube when the first fluid source is disconnected from the second portion of the tube (capable of, can disconnect and reconnect with different sources), wherein the adapter defines an adapter channel (opening of 32) that is in fluid communication with the fluid passageway when the adapter is connected to the third portion of the tube (fluid travels within all components), wherein the adapter is configured to be detachably connected to a second fluid source different from the first fluid source (capable of, detachable via threads), the adapter comprising a first adapter end, a second adapter end opposite to the first adapter end, an adapter axis extending between the first adapter end and the second adapter end, an inner surface, and an outer surface (opposing ends of adapter with axis and an inner and outer surface thereof), wherein the adapter is configured to at least partially receive the third portion of the tube therein through the first adapter end (third tube is through both ends of adapter), the adapter comprising at least one second coupling element disposed on the inner surface proximal to the first adapter end (abutment of adapter to 31) and extending angularly about the adapter axis, wherein the at least one second coupling element is configured to at least partially receive the at least one first coupling element of the third portion (end of 31 is a shoulder) and wherein the tube is rotatable relative to the adapter about the tube axis upon connection with the adapter (tube would be rotatable upon connection).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an adapter and third portion as taught by Miller to the system of Sandholm, the motivation being that these would be a conventional nut/sleeve connection of mechanical components to allow for proper sealing to allow for various mixing of components.
The combination of Sandholm and Miller fails to teach the system forming a snap-fit connection between the adapter and the third portion.
However, Pappalardo teaches the use of a snap lock or snap fit connection of two components in a similar configuration (par. 28, 38).
The substitution of a known element (snap fit engagement) as taught by Pappalardo for another (shoulder fit engagement) as taught by Miller, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, a locked in and assembly feature between two cylindrical components.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandholm (6,601,782) in view of Miller (2,362,213).
Regarding claim 15, Sandholm fails to teach a configuration wherein the fluid nozzle does not include a plurality of baffle elements to thoroughly mix materials passing through the tube.
Miller teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor that does not include baffles (see figures 1 and 2).
The substitution of one known element (baffles) as taught by Sandholm for another (extruded sleeve) as taught by Miller would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, conveying fluids through a tube and performing mixing at a different position, thus also providing the benefit of changing the consistency upon exiting of the tube/nozzle system.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandholm (6,601,782) in view of Ahrens (DE102018001337)
Regarding claim 20, Sandholm further teaches wherein the second portion comprises a vertex, wherein the vertex is chamfered (construed as figure 2, chamfered outside section of 74 which has vertexes at each point), however fails to teach wherein the second portion comprises a polygonal shape along a length of the second portion.
However, Ahrens teaches the use of either a round or rectangular mixing part (see figures 4, 10, and 14 showing the different shapes of the cross sections).
The substitution of one known element (circular cross section) as taught by Sandholm for another (square or rectangular) as taught by Ahrens would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, mixing the materials with different internal shapes which could provide different mixing rates or fit into specific areas (e.g. a slotted opening vs round).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX M VALVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4233. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
ALEX M. VALVIS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
