Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/315,135

MULTI-NOZZLE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR APPLYING FLUID USING MULTI-NOZZLE DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
May 10, 2023
Examiner
KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nhk Spring Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
705 granted / 1118 resolved
-6.9% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
38.3%
-1.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1118 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The response filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on September 10, 2024 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (figure 2) in the reply filed on March 18, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 10, 2024. Claims 3-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 18, 2025. Applicant indicated that claims 1, 2 and 5 are readable on elected Species A. Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 which is not readable on the elected species. Therefore, claim 5 cannot read on the elected species. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1, 2, 15 and 16 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 1 recites the limitation "the outer diameter" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim(s) 1 and 2 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bucknam et al. (1,947,755). Bucknam et al. disclose a multi-nozzle device comprising: a nozzle body 1 including a chamber 10 into which a fluid enters; a first pipe 2 configured to define a reference nozzle provided in the nozzle body, the reference nozzle including an inflow end (upstream end) communicating to the chamber and an outflow end (downstream end) projecting outward from an end surface 7 of the nozzle body, and the reference nozzle having a predetermined first length (length of tip 2) and a predetermined first inner diameter (diameter of passage 25 of tip 2); and a second pipe 6 configured to define a specific nozzle, the specific nozzle being disposed at a distance from the reference nozzle, the specific nozzle including an inflow end (upstream end) communicating to the chamber and an outflow end (downstream end) projecting outward from the end surface 7 of the nozzle body, and the specific nozzle having a second length (length of tip 6) and a second inner diameter (diameter of passage 25 of tip 6); wherein: the nozzle body includes a recess portion 15, 24 provided at a location in an inner surface (surface of branch 11) of the nozzle body which corresponds to a location of the inflow end of the specific nozzle, the inflow end of the specific nozzle being disposed and opened at a bottom surface (surface of threaded socket 24; surface of outlet 15 is the top surface and the surface of threaded socket 24 is the bottom surface) of the recess portion; a diameter (diameter of threaded socket 24) of the recess portion is greater than the outer diameter (diameter of the threaded portion of tip 6 in threaded socket 24), and the first inner diameter and the second inner diameter are equal to each other (each of the tips 2 and 6 have the passage 25; page 2, ll. 17-19), and the second length is less than the first length (see figure 1); wherein the second length is less than the first length by an amount corresponding to a depth (see below) of the recess portion. PNG media_image1.png 434 505 media_image1.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bucknam et al. do not disclose (i) the inflow end of the specific nozzle is disposed and opened at a bottom surface of the recess portion and (ii) a diameter of the recess portion is greater than the outer diameter of the second pipe. Bucknam et al. disclose (i) the inflow end of the specific nozzle being disposed and opened at a bottom surface (surface of threaded socket 24; surface of outlet 15 is the top surface and the surface of threaded socket 24 is the bottom surface) of the recess portion and (ii) a diameter (diameter of threaded socket 24) of the recess portion is greater than the outer diameter (diameter of the threaded portion of tip 6 in threaded socket 24). The diameter of the threaded socket 24 must be greater than the diameter of the threaded portion of tip 6 in order for tip 6 to be inserted into the threaded socket 24. 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 CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30. 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 on (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. /CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM Examiner Art Unit 3752 CK
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jun 27, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jan 26, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599730
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A FLUID DISPERSAL CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594565
SPRAY GUN WITH ADJUSTABLE ATOMIZER AND REMOVABLE NOZZLE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589399
WATER DISCHARGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12551741
RIDGE SEAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544785
APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING RECONFIGURABLE WALLS OF WATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+21.2%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1118 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