Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/450,726

SPINDLE FLOW TYPE NOZZLE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner
BOECKMANN, JASON J
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allow Rate
482 granted / 984 resolved
-21.0% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
1041
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 984 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 . 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUANG TWM611983U in view of Materna (W0 02/28280) Regarding claim 1, CHUANG shows A spindle flow type nozzle (fig 10), comprising: a tube body (11) comprising an inner wall, an inlet and an outlet (fig 10), and an accommodating space formed between the inner wall, the inlet and the outlet (fig 10), wherein the inner wall adjacent to a middle position of the tube body is defined as a middle section area, and an inlet-side inner wall and an outlet-side inner wall are respectively located two sides of the middle section area (fig 10), wherein the outlet-side inner wall extends from the middle section area towards a center point or a centerline of the outlet at an outlet-side thickening angle (fig 10, that angle is 0- deg in CHUANG); and a partition member (13) located within the accommodating space of the tube body, the partition member adjacent to a middle position thereof being defined as a middle ring area (fig 10), and a first convex body and a second convex body respectively located two sides of the middle ring area (fig 10), wherein the first convex body faces the inlet of the tube body to forms a converging space between the first convex body and the inlet-side inner wall (fig 10), and a cross-sectional area of the converging space gradually decreases from the inlet towards the outlet (fig 10), wherein the second convex body faces the outlet of the tube body to form a diverging space between the second convex body and the outlet-side inner wall (fig 10), and the cross-sectional area of the diverging space gradually increases from the inlet towards the outlet (fog 10), wherein at least one passage is formed between the middle ring area and the inner wall to connect the converging space and the diverging space (fig 10) But fails to disclose that the outlet side inner wall extends obliquely from the middle section area towards a center point or centerline of the outlet and that outlet side thickening angle ranges from greater than 0 degrees to 10 degrees. However, Materna teaches a nozzle with the internal taper being less than 10 degrees (page 17, lines 5-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the internal diameter of the exit of CHUANG tapered at an angle of less than 10 degrees, in order to achieve a good quality dispensed flow and minimize flow disturbances just before the nozzle exit, as taught by Materna (page 17, liens 5-15). The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to make the internal diameter of the nozzle outlet taper without changing the external diameter of the nozzle outlet of CHUANG, this would result in the claimed angle being a thickening angle as well as a taper angle. Regarding claim 2, further comprising at least one connecting member (15 or 25) to connect the partition member and the inner wall. Regarding claim 3, wherein the first convex body extends from the middle ring area toward the center point or the centerline of the inlet at a first inclined angle, and the second convex body extends from the middle ring area toward the center point or the centerline of the outlet at a second inclined angle, wherein the second inclined angle is greater than the outlet-side thickening angle (fig 10). Regarding claim 4, wherein the cross-sectional area of the passage is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the converging space and the diverging space (fig 10). Regarding claim 5, wherein the connecting member connects the middle section area of the inner wall and the middle ring area of the partition member (fig 2, 5). Regarding claim 9, fig 1 shows the outlet-side thickening angle being zero. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does 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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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 (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. /JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 3/2/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 17, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594572
ARTICULATED AND EXTENDIBLE ROTARY HEAD FOR A PRESSURISED AIR JET SPRAY GUN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594566
SPRAY GUN, IN PARTICULAR A PRESSURISED AIR ATOMISATION PAINT SPRAY GUN, IN PARTICULAR A HAND-HELD PRESSURISED AIR ATOMISATION PAINT SPRAY GUN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575477
ELECTRIC-POWERED BULK MATERIAL DISPERSING SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569707
SPECIAL CONTAINER FOR BATTERY TRANSPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558698
FLUID DELIVERY ASSEMBLY FOR A SPRAY GUN
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
49%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+28.9%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 984 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month