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 Amendment filed November 24th, 2025 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 4, 6 and 20 as well as the addition of new claim 21. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-19 and 21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 23rd, 2025. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted in response to the office action dated July 23, 2025 have been considered. In view of the amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Oklejas, Jr. in view of Sanchez, Baski, and the additional references are withdrawn rendering these arguments moot. The withdrawal of the prior art rejections is made in light of the amended claim language and the present state of the record, and no admission is made regarding the accuracy of Applicant’s interpretations of the cited references or the technical characterizations set forth in the remarks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-19 and 21 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, these claims as amended when read in light of the specification, certain aspects of the claim language remain unclear. Both claims recite functional language such as “pressurized jets” that “generate a torque…to augment a rotation”, without clearly setting forth objective parameters or boundaries by which these conditions can be evaluated. In particular, the disclosure does not clearly distinguish the claimed “pressurized jets” from ordinary retentate discharge under pressure, nor does it provide a clear point of reference for determining when torque generation meaningfully augments rotation as opposed to occurring incidentally during normal operation of the apparatus. As a result, even when the claims are considered in view of the specification, the scope of the claims remains unclear with respect to these limitations. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-16 and 21 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 1. Claims 18-19 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 17.
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 WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779