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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 01/28/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The specification filed 01/28/2026 is replete with conversion of “rotor” to “impeller”; this is not supported by the Original Specification as “impellers” can be “rotors”, a term of art that is recognized as a rotor structure (typically with blades, airfoils, or surfaces) that converts mechanical energy into fluid energy (similar to a water wheel, compressor on a gas turbine engine, a supercharger, or pump); the disclosed invention discloses turbines, a term of art that is recognized as a rotor structure (typically with blades, airfoils, or surfaces) that convert fluid energy into mechanical energy (similar to a wind turbine, turbine in a gas turbine engine, the turbine section of a turbocharger), and is therefore new matter.
The Examiner notes that the Substitute Specification (Pg. 7:8) has been amended to “the spindle is sufficiently accurate” from “the invention is sufficiently precise” in the Original Specification; which is a change in scope as “accuracy” is not “precision” and are not interchangeable, and is therefore new matter.
The Examiner notes that Substitute Specification (Pg. 9:1-2) has been amended to “In many cases it is advantageous if two or three impellers” from “In many cases it is advantageous if two or more rotors” in the Original Specification; which is a change in scope as “two or more rotors” is a completely different scope than “two or three impellers”
The Examiner notes that the Substitute Specification (Pg. 10:25) has been amended to “machine tool with a more powerful pump” from “tool machine with a more efficient pump” which is a change in scope as “powerful” and “efficient” while not mutually exclusive, have completely different meanings.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejections of 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments directed to the use of the term, “velocity”:
The Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejection directed to “velocity” is moot as the language, “high-velocity” has been removed from the claims.
Regarding the arguments directed to the use of the term, “rotating impeller”
The Examiner respectfully submits that “impellers” can be “rotors”, a term of art that is recognized as a rotor structure (typically with blades, airfoils, or surfaces) that converts mechanical energy into fluid energy (similar to a water wheel, compressor on a gas turbine engine, a supercharger, or pump); the disclosed invention discloses turbines, a term of art that is recognized as a rotor structure (typically with blades, airfoils, or surfaces) that convert fluid energy into mechanical energy (similar to a wind turbine, turbine in a gas turbine engine, the turbine section of a turbocharger), and is therefore new matter.
Regarding the arguments directed to the “the respective discharge axis of the jet extending in a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis of the spindle”
The Examiner notes there is support for “The volume flow of the fluid that passes through the lines21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and makes contact with the rotor9 via the nozzle arrangements15, 16, 17, 18, 19 changes accordingly. There the fluid exerts an influence with a tangential directional component on the rotor and causes it to rotate.” (see page 30 of the Original Specification) which does not require “the respective discharge axis of the jet extending in a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis of the spindle” as claimed by the application as a “tangential direction” of discharge does not strictly require the discharge axis of the jet to be perpendicular to the rotational axis of the spindle. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the Original Specification does not well define any planes.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “there is no disclosure of jets oriented tangentially in a perpendicular plane that impinges directly onto an impeller without mandatory downstream stages”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 25-51 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.
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.
Claims 25-43, 46 and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryszczuk (US Patent 3,386,702 A) in view of Marsden (US PGPUB 2011/0311247 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Kryszczuk discloses a driven tool holder (10) comprising:
a spindle (20);
a free jet turbine (13, 14; 46, 47, 30, 31, 38, 39) comprising a rotating impeller (30, 31) mounted on the spindle and, at least two or more nozzle arrangements (46, 47), each nozzle arrangement including one or more stationary nozzles (Fig. 2; there is one nozzle for each nozzle arrangement) configured to discharge a velocity jet of pressurized working fluid (13, 14; Col. 2:7-10 "air under pressure") whose discharge axis has a tangential component (Fig. 2, Fig. 5 show there is at least a tangential component to the discharge) relative to a circumferential path of the impeller, the jet thereby impinging directly onto the impeller to rotate the spindle, the respective discharge axis of the jet extending in a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis of the spindle (Fig. 2, 46, 47 the discharge plane is perpendicular to the rotational axis of the spindle as the rotational axis of the spindle is through the page);
wherein the free jet turbine comprises said two or more nozzle arrangements (46, 47);
each nozzle arrangement has a dedicated supply line for a fluid delivery (13, 14);
said supply lines are selectively openable and closable by at least one directional valve (50, 51; Col. 3:68-74);
said at least one directional valve is switchable between switch positions including one switch position and another switch position (Col. 3:68-74, at least open and partially open);
in said one switch position, said at least one directional valve individually supplies the pressurized work fluid to one of said two or more nozzle arrangements; (Col. 3:49-63);
However, Kryszczuk does not disclose,
“in said another switch position said at least one directional valve jointly and simultaneously supplies the pressurized work fluid to more than one of said two or more nozzle arrangements;
whereby the switching of the at least one directional valve between the switch position controls torque applied to the spindle by controlling an activation or deactivation of the two or more nozzle arrangements”
PNG
media_image1.png
484
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marsden teaches, in the field of gas powered turbines, a plurality of inlet lines (106, 107; 106a', 107a', 106b', 107b') controlled by independently operated main control valves [0102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the gas powered turbine of Kryszczuk with multiple the multiple inlet lines and control valves of Marsden, as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “Further, since the rotational speed of the rotary flywheel may be controlled (and increased or decreased) by independent operation of main control valves within each condensate line 106, 107; 106a', 107a', 106b', 107b' there is no need for any high speed reduction gear reducers or electronics. [0102]”
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, further comprising:
the at least one directional valve includes two outputs (Kryszczuk; 13, 14) that open into the associated supply line (Fig. 2; 12), wherein there is a throttle (Kryszczuk; Col. 3:36-74, in the description "damper plate" as well as 56 the adjustable portion of the damper assembly) in at least one of the outputs downstream from the at least one directional valve (Kryszczuk; Fig. 5), and that the outputs open into the supply line (Kryszczuk; Fig. 5, the outputs open into the supply line).
Regarding claim 27, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein each one of the two or more nozzle arrangement has the one or more stationary nozzles are arranged on the ends of the associated supply lines (Kryszczuk; Fig. 2, each stationary nozzle arrangement (46, 47 are located on the supply lines 13, 14).
Regarding claim 28, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein the fluid emitted by the stationary nozzles drives the spindle in the same direction of rotation or opposing directions of rotation (Kryszczuk; Col. 4:25-49).
Regarding claim 29, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein the free jet turbine includes two or more rotors (Kryszczuk; 37, 39, 33, 35; Fig. 4, Fig. 1), and that each rotor is assigned at least one of the supply lines or at least one nozzle arrangement (Kryszczuk; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 30, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 29 as above, wherein the two or more rotors have various diameters (Kryszczuk; 37, 39).
Regarding claim 31, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein the at least one directional valve that is configured to open or close the supply lines are arranged on a tool machine (Kryszczuk; 10, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein the at least one directional valve to open or closes the supply lines is arranged inside the driven tool holder (Kryszczuk; 10, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 32 as above, further comprising: two of the supply lines (Kryszczuk; 13, 14), and a controllable throttle (Kryszczuk; 50, 51) that is arranged on one of the supply lines.
Regarding claim 34, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above,
wherein the tool intake (Kryszczuk; Col. 2:24-36; 18, 19) is arranged on a first end of the spindle (Kryszczuk; Fig. 1), and wherein on of the two or more rotors is positioned on the first end of the spindle and/or on a second end opposite the first end of the spindle (Kryszczuk; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 35, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein the spindle is integrated in bearings (Kryszczuk; 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) in a housing (Kryszczuk; 11) of the driven tool holder (Kryszczuk; 10) in a manner such that the spindle can rotate.
Regarding claim 36, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 35 as above, wherein there is at least one rotor (Kryszczuk; 30) of said two or more rotors between two bearings (Kryszczuk; 22, 23, 24; 25, 26; Col. 2:47-63).
Regarding claim 37, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 32 as above, wherein the at least one direction valve includes a circular positioning ring (Kryszczuk ; 49) and an annular sealing surface (Kryszczuk; 50, 51; the annular sealing surfaces of the valves), that interacts with the circular positioning ring, wherein the supply lines are distributed via a circumferential angle of the annular or conical sealing surface (Kryszczuk; Col. 3:64-4:11), and wherein the circular positioning ring releases or closes one or more of the supply lines depending on its rotational position relative to a housing (Kryszczuk; 11).
Regarding claim 38, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 37 as above, wherein the circular positioning ring includes a counter surface (Kryszczuk; 56) that complements the annular or conical sealing surface (Kryszczuk; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), and that the counter surface is an annular with a central angle of less than 360 (Kryszczuk; Fig. 2 shows that 56 is less than an entire circle), and that the circular positioning ring includes a recess in the circumference of the circular positioning ring before or following the counter surface (Kryszczuk; Fig. 2, 49 shows a recess before the counter surface).
Regarding claim 39, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein a housing (Kryszczuk; 11) borders a distribution space (Kryszczuk; Fig. 1, immediately to the right of 47a, 46a; e.g., the flow path to the rotors).
Regarding claim 40, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, further comprising: one or more fluid connections (Kryszczuk; 13, 14, 15, 16,17, 46, 47; Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 41, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein at least one fluid connection on the circular positioning ring (Kryszczuk; 46, 47) and/or that there is at least one fluid connection on housing (Kryszczuk; 16, 17).
Regarding claim 42, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, further comprising at least one seal (Kryszczuk; 50, 51).
Regarding claim 43, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, further comprising: at least one diverter for fluid (Kryszczuk: 50, 51; in this case the damper plate portions 50, 51 in Fig. 2 both change the direction of the fluid or restrict the fluid flow).
Regarding claim 47, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein the at least one directional valves is rotationally repositioned (Kryszczuk; 50, 51; Fig .2).
Regarding claim 50, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein the spindle bears a flywheel mass (Kryszczuk; 36, 38, 29).
Regarding claim 51, the combination Kryszczuk and Marsden teach all of claim 25 as above, wherein at least one rotor is designed for left-rotating and right rotating operation (Kryszczuk; Col. 2:10-15).
Claims 44-46 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryszczuk (US Patent 3,386, 702 A) and Marsden (US PGPUB 2011/0311347 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, and in further view of Jacobsson (WO 02/051584 A1).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Kryszczuk and Marsden discloses all of claim 25 as above.
However, the combination of Kryszczuk and Marsden do not teach or suggest, "a sensor arrangement or one or more sensors for determining the rotational speed of the spindle and/or other operating states of the holder."
Jacobsson teaches, in the field of pneumatic turbine operated tools (abstract), a sensor arrangement (52, 53) and/or evaluation unit (55) for determining the rotational speed of the spindle and/or other operating states of the driven tool holder (Page 4, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
provide the driven tool holder and the directional control valves (50, 51) of Kryszczuk and Marsden with the tacho-generator (52, 53) to form a governing device using the control valve (48) and control unit (55) of Jacobsson, as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would
appreciate that "depending on the actual voltage magnitude of the generator being above or below this
certain voltage magnitude, the control unit 55 will deliver either a positive or negative voltage to the
servo motor 54, thereby making the latter active the flow control valve 48 in an opening or closing
direction respectively (Page 4, paragraph 3)".
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Kryszczuk, Marsden, and Jacobsson teach all of claim 44 as above, wherein the sensor arrangement or said on or more sensors is connected to an evaluation unit
(Jacobsson, 55) either wireless or via a grid connection (Jacobsson, 60).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Kryszczuk, Marsden, and Jacobsson teach all of claim 45 as above, wherein the evaluation unit actuates a throttle (Jacobsson; Page 4, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Kryszczuk, Marsden, and Jacobsson teach all of claim 44 as above, wherein sensor data recorded by the sensor arrangement or said one or more sensors are used to control the at least one directional valves (Jacobsson; Page 4, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Kryszczuk, Marsden, and Jacobsson teach all of claim 48 as above, wherein the sensor data (Jacobsson; 52, 53) are processed in the sensor arrangement or said one or more sensors (Jacobsson, 55), from which the at least one directional valve (Kryszczuk, 50, 51) is
controlled Jacobsson; Page 4, paragraphs 3-4).
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 RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745