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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 march 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s request that claim 26 be examined as part of the elected species is acknowledged and is granted in view of Applicant’s arguments that claim 26 is directed to figure 14A which is part of the elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 28 recites “wherein the vane is movable between a contact configuration and a spaced apart configuration relative to an adjacent spoke of the plurality of spokes” however, there is no disclosure of any of the vanes being in contact with an adjacent spoke thereof. All the vanes are depicted as being spaced apart from adjacent spokes.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 28 is 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.
It is unclear what is meant by “wherein the vane is movable between a contact configuration and a spaced apart configuration relative to an adjacent spoke of the plurality of spokes” as there is no disclosure of any of the vanes being in contact with an adjacent spoke thereof. All the vanes are depicted as being spaced apart from adjacent spokes.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the vane" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; “the vane” should be changed to --the at least one vane--.
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, 24, 27 and 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rief et al. (US Patent 6,292,970).
With regards to claim 1, Rief et al. discloses a fluid-powered motor comprising a core, the core comprising a rotor 110 (fig. 5), a plurality of spokes 112 extending from the rotor (fig. 5), wherein each spoke is fixed in at a position relative to the rotor (the spokes are integral to the rotor), a plurality of vanes 114, each vane movably attached to a corresponding spoke of the plurality of spokes, and a plurality of pins (spokes’ bulged part 112a), each pin connecting one vane of the plurality of vanes to the corresponding spoke of the plurality of spokes (fig. 5), wherein at least one vane of the plurality of vanes is rotatable about an axis of the corresponding pin (col. 6, line 61 to col. 7, line 4) between a folded position (when there is no uplifting force being applied to the vanes, the vanes will naturally fold under gravity attraction since the vanes freely pivot, see col. 7, lines 2-4) and unfolded position (col. 7, lines 6-14) relative to the corresponding spoke. Regarding the recitation “wherein, in the folded position, the at least one vane contacts an adjacent vane of the plurality of vanes” Applicant should note that it is obvious that because the vanes can freely pivot, it follows that absent any force that would maintain the vanes in the unfolded position, the vanes will naturally fall and contact an adjacent vane under the effect of gravity. Further, Applicant has not provided any stated problem being solved or unexpected results being obtained in having the vanes contact adjacent vanes in the folded position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that having the at least one vane contacts an adjacent vane of the plurality of vanes in the folded position is an obvious matter of design choice wherein no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the at least one vane contacts an adjacent vane of the plurality of vanes in the folded position versus the adjacent vane not being contacted in the folded position.
Regarding claim 24, figure 5.
Regarding claim 27, Applicant should note that it is inherent that the pins will restrict translation of the vanes so that the vanes will not slide off the spokes.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, see figure 5 of Rief et al.
Regarding claim 32, see figure 5 of Rief et al. where it is clear that the vanes on the right side of the figure will have their domes face the rotor core.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, see col. 2, lines 54-58 of Rief et al.
Claim(s) 10 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rief et al. (US Patent 6,292,970) in view Rief’411 (US Patent 10066411).
Rief et al. discloses a fluid-powered motor as shown above. Although Rief et al. does not explicitly disclose the core being provided as a module however, it is known to make such cores as modules a s attested by Rief’411, see figures 42, 45 and 46 for example where the module can simply be installed or removed from a body of a swimming pool cleaner without tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide the core of the fluid powered motor of Rief et al. as a module, in light of the teachings of Rief’411, in order to provide a core that can be easily installed and removed from a body of a swimming pool cleaner. Further, whether or not the core is removable from a body of the swimming pool cleaner with or without a tool lends no patentable weight to the product being claimed since such recitation does not impart any specific structure to the product.
Regarding claim 29, see col. 41, lines 33-39 of Rief’411.
Claim(s) 1, 24, 27 and 30-34, in the alternative, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rief et al. in view of Phillips (US Patent 6,065,289).
With regards to claim 1, Rief et al. discloses a fluid-powered motor comprising a core, the core comprising a rotor 110 (fig. 5), a plurality of spokes 112 extending from the rotor (fig. 5), wherein each spoke is fixed in at a position relative to the rotor (the spokes are integral to the rotor), a plurality of vanes 114, each vane movably attached to a corresponding spoke of the plurality of spokes, and a plurality of pins (spokes’ bulged part 112a), each pin connecting one vane of the plurality of vanes to the corresponding spoke of the plurality of spokes (fig. 5), wherein at least one vane of the plurality of vanes is rotatable about an axis of the corresponding pin (col. 6, line 61 to col. 7, line 4) between a folded position (when there is no uplifting force being applied to the vanes, the vanes will naturally fold under gravity attraction since the vanes freely pivot, see col. 7, lines 2-4) and unfolded position (col. 7, lines 6-14) relative to the corresponding spoke. Regarding the recitation “wherein, in the folded position, the at least one vane contacts an adjacent vane of the plurality of vanes” Applicant should note that it is obvious that because the vanes can freely pivot, it follows that absent any force that would maintain the vanes in the unfolded position, the vanes will naturally fall and contact an adjacent vane under the effect of gravity. Further, Applicant has not provided any stated problem being solved or unexpected results being obtained in having the vanes contact adjacent vanes in the folded position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that having the at least one vane contacts an adjacent vane of the plurality of vanes in the folded position is an obvious matter of design choice wherein no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the at least one vane contacts an adjacent vane of the plurality of vanes in the folded position versus the adjacent vane not being contacted in the folded position.
Although Rief et al. discloses pins integrally formed with the spokes however, it is known to form such pins as separate parts as attested by Phillips where vanes (outer vane element) 28 are connected to spokes (inner vane element) 26 by pins 34, see col. 6, lines 20-25 and figures 1 and 2. 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 assembly of the spokes and vanes of Rief et al. by providing the pins and the vanes as separate elements, in light of the teachings of Phillips, because it would have involved simply forming in separate parts what has previously be made as a single integral piece. See MPEP 2144.04 V B.
Regarding claim 24, figure 5 of Rief et al.
Regarding claim 27, Applicant should note that it is inherent that the pins will restrict translation of the vanes so that the vanes will not slide off the spokes.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, see figure 5 of Rief et al.
Regarding claim 32, see figure 5 of Rief et al. where it is clear that the vanes on the right side of the figure will have their domes face the rotor core.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, see col. 2, lines 54-58 of Rief et al.
Claim(s) 10 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rief et al./Phillips as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rief’411.
Rief et al./Phillips discloses a fluid-powered motor as shown above. Although Rief et al. does not explicitly disclose the core being provided as a module however, it is known to make such cores as modules a s attested by Rief’411, see figures 42, 45 and 46 for example where the module can simply be installed or removed from a body of a swimming pool cleaner without tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide the core of the fluid powered motor of Rief et al./Phillips as a module, in light of the teachings of Rief’411, in order to provide a core that can be easily installed and removed from a body of a swimming pool cleaner. Further, whether or not the core is removable from a body of the swimming pool cleaner with or without a tool lends no patentable weight to the product being claimed since such recitation does not impart any specific structure to the product.
Regarding claim 29, see col. 41, lines 33-39 of Rief’411.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rief et al./Phillips as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lovold et al. (US2018/0009500).
Rief et al./Phillips discloses a fluid-powered motor as shown above. Although Rief et al. does not explicitly disclose the pin including a first straight section, a second straight section, and a curved section between the first and the second straight sections however, it is known to provide such pins in a hinge type connection, the pins having a first straight section, a second straight section, and a curved section between the first and the second straight sections as attested by Lovold et al., see pin 160 in figure 10 and paragraph [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided pins having a first straight section, a second straight section, and a curved section between the first and the second straight sections as the pin of Rief et al./Phillips, in light of the teachings of Lovold et al., in order to use pins that do not require additional elements to be secured in place.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Rief fails to teach or suggest at least “wherein at least one vane of the plurality of vanes is rotatable about an axis of the corresponding pin between a folded position and an unfolded position relative to the corresponding spoke, wherein, in the folded position, the at least one vane contacts an adjacent vane of the plurality of vanes”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined in the above rejections, Rief discloses that the vanes are free to pivot about the hinges which as one of ordinary skill would understand suggests that there is practically no friction force that would prevent pivoting of the vanes, and since the vanes would be subject to gravity, when there is no other force to maintain the vanes in the unfolded position, they will naturally fold due to gravity, and depending on the closeness and/or length of the vanes, at least one of the vanes will contact an adjacent vane of the one of the plurality of vanes in the folded position. Further, as also noted in the above rejections, Applicant has not provided any stated problem being solved or unexpected results being obtained in having the vanes contact adjacent vanes in the folded position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights