Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/835,257

CUP-SHAPED SHOWER JET OUTLET NOZZLE AND SHOWER DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 08, 2022
Examiner
ZHOU, QINGZHANG
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hansgrohe SE
OA Round
2 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
551 granted / 817 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
871
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 817 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Janu26, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 11 and 18 have been canceled. Claims 9, 10, 12-17, 19, and 20 have been withdrawn. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to pages 11-13 of the Applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that the obviousness rejection under prior art to Gregory does not disclose a weakening pattern of the bottom of the nozzle as recited in claim 1. The flaps of Gregory are not part of a nozzle bottom and therefore not a weakening pattern of a nozzle bottom. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As illustrated in the annotated figure below, the Examiner interprets tapering section 44 and region 48 as corresponding to the claimed “bottom.” The claim defines the “bottom” only as delimiting the hollowing chamber along the nozzle’s longitudinal axis on the outlet side. The tapering section 44 and region 48 in the figure satisfy this definition. Accordingly, the prior art continues to meet the claim limitations and the rejection is maintained. 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. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory et al. (US 2003/0062426 A1). With regard to claim 1, Gregory discloses a cup-shaped shower jet outlet nozzle (Fig. 2), comprising: a hollow chamber (Fig. 2c); a lateral wall (see annotated figure below) delimiting the hollow chamber (see annotated figure below) transversely to a nozzle longitudinal axis (see annotated figure below); a bottom (see annotated figure below) delimiting the hollow chamber in the direction of the nozzle longitudinal axis on an outlet side (as seen in the annotated figure below, bottom is formed with tapered section 44 in conjunction with section 48 on outlet side), wherein the bottom is made of an elastic material (Par. [0102]) and wherein the bottom comprises a jet outlet opening structure (46) including at least one jet outlet opening and having an open initial configuration (Fig. 7(a)); wherein the bottom is configured, with the jet outlet opening structure (46) thereof, under the effect of a shower fluid operating pressure in the hollow chamber (Par. [0108-0120]), to deform in an elastically resilient manner and thereby to steadily increase an opening cross-section of the jet outlet opening structure with increasing shower fluid operating pressure within a normal operating pressure range (Par. [0108]); and wherein the jet outlet opening structure (46) is spaced apart from the lateral wall (see annotated figure below), a weakening pattern (48 flaps) being configured to deform in an elastically resilient manner under the effect of the fluid operating pressure in the hollow chamber (Par. [0108-0120]). PNG media_image1.png 624 902 media_image1.png Greyscale Gregory is silent to explicitly disclose that the bottom on at least one of an inner side and an outer side has a weakening pattern with a lesser wall thickness as compared to an adjacent region of the bottom. However, Gregory further discloses the flexibility of the weaken pattern can also be adjusted by changing the thickness in order to create a specific aperture size in a relationship to water pressure (Par. [0032] and Fig. 7 shows thickness on flaps 48 is thinner than region 44 of the bottom). 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 wall thickness of the weaking pattern (48) of Gregory with a lesser wall thickness as compared to an adjacent region of the bottom, doing it would allow the weaken pattern more flexible and deformable. With regard to claim 2, the device of Gregory as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gregory further discloses that the weakening pattern includes at least one weakening zone in the bottom, which extends from an associated jet outlet opening of the jet outlet opening structure away from the latter (Fig. 3, 4, and 6). With regard to claim 3, the device of Gregory as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Gregory further discloses that the weakening zone in the bottom is a linear weakening zone extending with a radial main directional component in a straight line or single-bent or multiple-bent in undulated lines, or the weakening zone in the bottom extends up to the lateral wall and there transitions into a weakening zone in the lateral wall (Fig. 3, 4, and 6). With regard to claim 4, the device of Gregory as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Gregory further discloses that the bottom for the jet outlet opening, away from which opening the at least one weakening zone extends, is disposed in a jet angle setting manner, wherein the at least one weakening zone extending away from the jet outlet opening on the inner side of the bottom are disposed in an asymmetric arrangement in a jet angle setting manner relative to a longitudinal central plane of the jet outlet opening; or the bottom, at least in a region including the jet outlet opening, extends inclined on the inner side in a jet angle setting manner; or the jet outlet opening in the bottom is disposed eccentrical in a jet angle setting manner (Fig. 3, 4, and 6). With regard to claim 5, the device of Gregory as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Gregory further discloses that the asymmetric arrangement of the one or more weakening zones extending away from the jet outlet opening on the inner side of the bottom comprises two linear weakening zones opposed to each other in relation to the longitudinal central plane of the jet outlet opening having at least one of different lengths and different widths, or comprises a weakening zone extending away from the jet outlet opening on the inner side of the bottom, with a non-weakening bottom zone opposed thereto in relation to the longitudinal central plane of the jet outlet opening (Fig. 3, 4, and 6). With regard to claim 6, the device of Gregory as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gregory further discloses that the weakening pattern includes in each case at least one weakening zone on the inner side and on the outer side of the bottom, wherein the at least one weakening zone on the inner side is disposed offset in relation to the at least one weakening zone on the outer side in the circumferential direction of the bottom (Fig. 3, 4, and 6). With regard to claim 7, the device of Gregory as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gregory is silent to disclose that the at least one jet outlet opening of the jet outlet opening structure has an outlet equivalent diameter in a range of 0.2 mm to 1.2 mm; or a wall thickness of the bottom outside the weakening pattern is in a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm; or a minimum wall thickness of the bottom in the region of the weakening pattern is between one fifth and half of a wall thickness of the bottom outside the weakening pattern; or the at least one jet outlet opening of the jet outlet opening structure has a funnel-type quadrant-shaped rounded inlet region which has an inlet curvature radius between 0.1 mm and 0.3 mm; or a hollow chamber inner diameter is in a range of 1.5 mm to 4 mm; or a hollow chamber length is in a range of 4 mm to 8 mm; or a wall thickness of the lateral wall outside the weakening pattern is at least 0.8 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the jet outlet opening structure of Gregory to include an outlet equivalent diameter in a range of 0.2 mm to 1.2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case, changing the jet outlet opening dimension, which achieves the recognized result of controlling fluid flow characteristics such as generating a desire jet size, and as such the jet outlet opening dimension is recognized in the art as a result effective variable. Further, a one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at modifying the Gregory jet outlet as changes to outlet design, including dimensions, are well within the level of skill of the art. Finding the optimal maximum dimension would therefore be simply a matter of routine experimentation. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8, 21, and 22 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 THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 08, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 26, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599917
SHOWER HEAD CAPABLE OF BEING RAPIDLY ASSEMBLED
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582856
FIRE SUPPRESSION ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582575
EYE RINSING ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582213
BEAUTY EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569869
Method of Determining Characteristic of Fluid, Control System, Apparatus and Robot System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+24.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 817 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month