DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rentsch 2020/0330704.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Rentsch teaches a hollow-cone nozzle body (figure 2a) comprising: at least one nozzle geometry (17); at least one turbulence chamber (15); and at least one turbulence channel (from 21 to 16 in figure 2a) extending laterally towards the turbulence chamber (channel extends laterally inwards, where it is not claimed that the channel does not extend circumferentially about chamber 15), wherein the at least one turbulence channel tangentially opens into the turbulence chamber (16 extends tangentially into 15 in figure 2b), wherein the at least one turbulence channel comprises at least one filter arrangement which is arranged in a respective turbulence channel so that a direction of flow corresponds to a direction of flow of the respective turbulence channel (flow through filter channels 20 corresponds to direction of flow from 21 to 16 in figure 2b), and wherein the at least one filter arrangement comprises several filter channels oriented along the at least one turbulence channel (several channels 20 shown in both figures 2a and 2b).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Rentsch teaches that the at least one filter arrangement is integrated into the hollow cone nozzle body (holes 20 are part of body 14 in figures 2a and 2b).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Rentsch teaches that the at least one filter channel has a first cross-sectional area which is smaller than a second cross-sectional area of the nozzle geometry (cross-sectional area of 20 in figure 2b is shown as significantly less than the cross-sectional area of nozzle 17).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Rentsch teaches the at least one filter arrangement comprises a third cross-sectional area which is arranged perpendicularly to a direction of flow (cross-sectional area of 18 along line a in figure 2a, where it is not claimed that the flow direction through the third cross-sectional area is perpendicular to the direction of flow), and wherein a width of the third cross-sectional area is a multiple of a height of the third cross-sectional area (18 comprises both a width and height, where the ratio is not claimed), where the width is arranged perpendicularly to the height (width along axis A is perpendicular to height along axis a for 18 in figure 2a).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Rentsch teaches the at least one filter arrangement (18 and 20) terminates with an upper boundary of the at least one turbulence channel (18 terminates going inwards at both an upper and lower outward boundary of 16 as shown in figure 2a).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Rentsch teaches that the at least one filter arrangement is produced using an injection molding method and/or a laser processing (laser etching, paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Rentsch teaches the at least one nozzle geometry, the at least one turbulence chamber, and the at least one turbulence channel are arranged so that fluid is directed through the at least one filter arrangement into the least one turbulence channel to be tangentially guided into the turbulence chamber (flow path through 16 shown tangential in figure 2b, where flow passes from 21 to 17, paragraph [0054]), whereby the fluid is set in rotation (flow through channels 16 is at an angle as shown in figure 2b in order to induce rotation of the flow in 15, described in paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Rentsch teaches the at least one filter channel comprises a plurality of filter channels (plurality of channels 20 shown in figures 2a and 2b) and the at least one nozzle geometry, the at least one turbulence chamber, and the at least one turbulence channel are arranged so that fluid is directed through the plurality of filter channels into the least one turbulence channel to be tangentially guided into the turbulence chamber (flow passes from 21 to 17, paragraph [0054]), whereby the fluid is set in rotation (flow through channels 16 is at an angle as shown in figure 2b in order to induce rotation of the flow in 15, described in paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Rentsch teaches the at least one turbulence channel is arranged so that the fluid directed through the plurality of filter channels converge into the at least one turbulence channel (flow through 20 converges into 16, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Rentsch teaches that each of the plurality of filter channels has a first cross-sectional area (cross-sectional area of 20) that is smaller than a second cross-sectional area of the nozzle geometry (area of 20 shown significantly smaller than area of 17 in figure 2b).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Rentsch teaches the at least one filter channel comprises a plurality of filter channels (20) and each of the plurality of filter channels has a smallest first cross-sectional area which is smaller than a smallest second cross-sectional area of the nozzle geometry (area of 20 shown significantly smaller than area of 17 in figure 2b).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Rentsch teaches that each of the plurality of filter channels (20) has a smallest first cross-sectional area that is smaller than a smallest second cross-sectional area of the nozzle geometry (area of 20 shown significantly smaller than area of 17 in figure 2b).
In regards to Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 7, Rentsch teaches a hollow-cone nozzle body (figure 2a) comprising: at least one nozzle geometry (17); at least one turbulence chamber (15); and at least one turbulence channel extending laterally towards the turbulence chamber (16 and 18 extend laterally inwards, where it is not claimed that the channel does not extend circumferentially about chamber 15), wherein the turbulence channel tangentially opens into the turbulence chamber (as shown in figure 2b and described as a tangential inlet in abstract), and wherein the at least one turbulence channel comprises at least one filter arrangement (filter holes 20) which is arranged in a respective turbulence channel so that a direction of flow corresponds to a direction of flow of the respective turbulence channel (flow through 20 is radially inwards in the same direction as at least some of the flow through 16 and 18), and wherein the at least one filter arrangement comprises several filter channels oriented along the at least one turbulence channel (holes 20 at the inlet portion of turbulence channel comprising 16 and 18), wherein the at least one turbulence channel is wider in a region of the filter arrangement than in remaining regions of the at least one turbulence channel (18 adjacent to holes 20 is wider than 16 along the a axis shown in figure 2a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the filters of Rentsch are not oriented along the turbulence channels. Examiner has treated the turbulence channel as including at least holes 20, channel 18, and channel 16 in the rejections above. It is not claimed that the turbulence channel cannot extend about the turbulence chamber.
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 STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 (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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights