Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/932,858

CONE NOZZLE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Sep 16, 2022
Examiner
SCHWARTZ, KEVIN EDWARD
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Lechler GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
105 granted / 201 resolved
-17.8% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
253
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 201 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 The response filed on January 22nd, 2026 is acknowledged. Four pages of amended claims were received on 1/22/2026. Claims 1-5 have been amended and Claims 12-14 are newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 10/29/2025. Claims 1-8 and 12-14 are now rejected as noted below. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Cone Nozzle Species B (Figs. 6-13) in the reply filed on 9/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-11 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/30/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 7/31/2025. Examiner responded to the traversal in the non-final rejection mailed 10/29/2025. 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 1-4, 6-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB 2003/0029622 A1 to Clauss et al. (“Clauss”). As to Claim 1, Clauss discloses a cone nozzle (See Fig. 1 showing the entire cone nozzle, which sprays a cone per Paragraph 0012 and has various conical sections), the cone nozzle comprising a housing (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #8) wherein the housing has a liquid inlet (#1, which distributes water per Paragraph 0025), a swirl chamber (#23, which is a “turbulence chamber” per Paragraph 0023), a feed channel (See FC in Annotated 1) opening into the liquid inlet at a first opening (See O1 in Annotated Fig. 1, which is where #1 meets the feed channel FC), the feed channel extending from the liquid inlet to the swirl chamber (See Annotated Fig. 1, the feed channel FC extends from #1 to #23) and opening at a second opening into the swirl chamber (See O2 in Annotated Fig. 1), and an outlet channel (#28) having an outlet opening (See a lower end of #28 at a bottom of #29 in Fig. 1 and See Paragraph 0024), wherein the outlet channel starts from the swirl chamber (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0024), wherein, directly upstream of the second opening into the swirl chamber, the feed channel is aligned tangentially with respect to an imaginary circle centered on a central longitudinal axis of the swirl chamber (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 2. The portion S3 of the feed channel upstream of the second opening O2 is tangent to imaginary circle IC centered on axis A1 of the swirl chamber), wherein the liquid inlet is arranged parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the swirl chamber (See Annotated Fig. 1, the liquid inlet #1 is arranged parallel to axis A1), and the feed channel has at least two deflections through an angle of between 80 degrees and 100 degrees (See two deflections D1 and D2 that both deflect fluid at angle of 90 degrees), each deflection of the at least two deflections being disposed between the first opening into the liquid inlet and the second opening into the swirl chamber (See Annotated Fig. 1, the deflections D1 and D2 are both disposed between O1 and O2). As to Claim 2, in reference to the cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 1 above, Clauss further discloses wherein the feed channel has two rectilinear sections (See sections S1 and S2 in Annotated Fig. 1, which are sections that move in a straight line and are thus rectilinear), the rectilinear sections meeting at at least one of the deflections of the at least two deflections of the feed channel (See Annotated Fig. 1. Sections S1 and S2 meet at deflection D1). As to Claim 3, in reference to the cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 1 above, Clauss further discloses wherein the feed channel has a cross section, the cross section being constant except at the at least two deflections (See Annotated Fig. 1, the feed channel FC has a cross section that spans from O1 across S1, S2, and S3 to O2. The cross section is constant along S1. The cross section is constant along S2 other than at the deflections D1 and D2. The cross section is also constant along S3.), wherein the cross section in a region of the at least two deflections is greater than or equal to a cross section of the feed channel outside the region of the at least two deflections (See annotated Fig. 1. The section S2 can be considered a region of the deflections D1 and D2. The section S2 has a larger height than the sections S1 and S3, thus the cross section in the region S2 can be considered greater than the cross section of FC outside of S2). As to Claim 4, in reference to the cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 1 above, Clauss further discloses wherein the feed channel has three rectilinear sections each having a constant cross section (See sections S1, S2, and S3 in Annotated Fig. 1, which are sections that move in a straight line and are thus rectilinear), a first of the rectilinear sections being arranged between the liquid inlet and a first deflection of the at least two deflections (See Annotated Fig. 1. S1 is between O1 and D1), a second of the rectilinear sections being arranged between the first deflection and a second deflection of the at least two deflections (See Annotated Fig. 1. S2 is between D1 and D2) and a third of the rectilinear sections being arranged between the second deflection of the at least two deflections and the second opening of the feed channel into the swirl chamber (See Annotated Fig. 1. S3 is between D2 and O2). As to Claim 6, in reference to the cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 1 above, Clauss further discloses wherein the housing includes a first housing part (See Fig. 1, the first housing part is made up of #1, #2, #3, #4, and #24) including at least one section of the liquid inlet and one part of the feed channel (See Annotated Fig. 1, the first housing part includes the liquid inlet at #1 and portions of the feed channel along #2 and #4), and a second housing part (See Fig. 1, the second housing part is made up of #4, #5, #6, and #8) including the swirl chamber, the outlet channel and another part of the feed channel (See Annotated Fig. 1, the second housing part has the swirl chamber #23 formed between #4 and #6, the outlet channel formed in #6, and portions of the feed channel formed along #8). As to Claim 7, in reference to the cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 6 above, Clauss further discloses the cone nozzle including a cover (#26), the swirl chamber being closed by the cover at an end opposite the outlet channel (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0024). As to Claim 8, in reference to the cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 7 above, Clauss further discloses wherein the cover is formed integrally with the first housing part (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0024, the cover #26 is formed integrally with #24, which is part of the first housing part). As to Claim 12, in reference to the cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 1 above, Clauss further discloses wherein an entire amount of liquid entering the liquid inlet is deflected twice in the feed channel by the at least two deflections (See Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0025-0026 disclosing two different streams that split at #22 and move through holes at #14 that can be adjusted by adjusters #9. Paragraph 0027 discloses that #9 can be turned to close slits. Therefore, the cone nozzle is structured such that one adjuster can be moved to a closed position and an entire amount of liquid entering #1 can be deflected twice in FC by D1 and D2.). As to Claim 13, in reference to the cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 1 above, Clauss further discloses wherein the deflections of the at least two deflections are a first deflection (See D1 in Annotated Fig. 1) and a second deflection (See D2 in Annotated Fig. 1), and the first deflection is disposed downstream, in a direction of liquid flow through the cone nozzle, of the first opening and is disposed upstream of the second deflection (See Annotated Fig. 1, the first deflection D1 is disposed downstream of O1 and upstream of D2 relative to flow direction F1). As to Claim 14, Clauss discloses a cone nozzle (See Fig. 1 showing the entire cone nozzle, which sprays a cone per Paragraph 0012 and has various conical sections) defining a fluid flow direction therethrough (See F1 in Annotated Fig. 1) and comprising a housing (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #8), the housing defining a liquid inlet (#1), a swirl chamber (#23), a feed channel (See FC in Annotated Fig. 1) having a first upstream end in fluid communication with and opening into the liquid inlet (See O1 in Annotated Fig. 1) and a second downstream end in fluid communication with and opening into the swirl chamber (See O2 in Annotated Fig. 1), and an outlet channel (#28) having an outlet opening (See a lower end of #28 at a bottom of #29 in Fig. 1 and See Paragraph 0024), the outlet channel having a first end downstream of and in fluid communication with the swirl chamber (See E1 in Annotated Fig. 1) and a second end forming the outlet opening (See E2 in Annotated Fig. 1), the feed channel, upstream of the second downstream end of the feed channel, being oriented tangentially with respect to an imaginary circle centered on a central longitudinal axis of the swirl chamber (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 2. The portion S3 of the feed channel upstream of the second opening O2 is tangent to imaginary circle IC centered on axis A1 of the swirl chamber), the liquid inlet being parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the swirl chamber (See Annotated Fig. 1, the liquid inlet #1 is arranged parallel to axis A1), and the feed channel includes at least two deflections each defining an angle in the feed channel between 80 and 100 degrees (See two deflections D1 and D2 that both deflect fluid at angle of 90 degrees), each of the at least two deflections being disposed between the first upstream end and the second downstream end of the feed channel (See Annotated Fig. 1, the deflections D1 and D2 are both disposed between O1 and O2) and the first deflection is disposed downstream of the first upstream end of the feed channel (See Annotated Fig. 1 showing D1 downstream of O1 relative to flow direction F1) and the first deflection is disposed upstream of the second deflection (See Annotated Fig. 1 showing D1 upstream of D2 relative to flow direction F1). PNG media_image1.png 905 1006 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 833 972 media_image2.png Greyscale 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clauss in view of US PGPUB 2015/0202639 A1 to Fenton et al. (“Fenton”). Regarding Claim 5, in reference to the cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 1 above, Clauss does not specifically disclose wherein the feed channel has a circular cross section except at the at least two deflections (See Annotated Fig. 2 showing a circular cross section at S2, but a circular cross-section is not specifically shown at S1 and S3. The deflection D2 shown as #35 in Fig. 3 does not have a circular cross-section and the cross-section of deflection D1 is not entirely shown). However, Fenton discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraph 0001), a cone nozzle (See #1 in Fig. 1 and See Paragraph 0098 disclosing spraying a cone) comprising a feed channel (#3) that has a circular cross section (See Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0089-0091). Therefore, 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 cone nozzle of Clauss as applied to Claim 1 above such that the feed channel has a circular cross section except at the at least two deflections by utilizing #36 of Clauss at both D1 and D2 while having S1, S2, and S3 of Clauss all be circular, since doing so would utilize known feed channel and deflection geometries taught by Fenton and Clauss to yield the predictable result of using a suitable feed channel geometry for generating mist (See Fenton Paragraph 0089) while allowing for directed deflection of fluid flow (See Clauss Paragraph 0022). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-8 and 12-14 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST. 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 O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. 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. /KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 March 5, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 16, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 22, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564855
HIGH PRESSURE NOZZLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12544775
DISPENSING NOZZLE HAVING A TUBULAR EXIT ZONE COMPRISING VANES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12533688
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF ATOMIZING REACTIVE TWO-PART FLUIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12515229
INJECTION VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12508605
HANDHELD WATER SPRAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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
52%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+39.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 201 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