Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/900,397

COMPOSITE VORTEX REACTOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 31, 2022
Examiner
COOLEY, CHARLES E
Art Unit
1774
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM NINGBO CHINA
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1174 granted / 1486 resolved
+14.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1526
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1486 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
OFFICE ACTION after RCE This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application: Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774. Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300. 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119, which papers have been placed of record in the file. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 DEC 2025 has been entered. 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 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 13-15 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. Claim 1 defines that “an annular reaction space is formed between the inner cylinder and the outer cylinder” and further recites that “the cross-sectional area of the annular reaction space increases from a bottom of the annular reaction space to a top of the annular reaction space”. The examiner agrees that these two phrases accurately apply to the embodiments of instant Figures 2 and 3. However, claims 6 and 10 recite “wherein a cross sectional area of the annular reaction space is the same from the bottom to a top of the annular reaction space”. Accordingly, and contrary to the remarks filed with the RCE, claims 6 and 10 appear mutually exclusive to the subject matter of claim 1 since claim 1 recites that the cross-sectional area of the annular reaction space increases from a bottom of the annular reaction space to a top of the annular reaction space while claims 6 and 10 recite that the assumed identical cross-sectional area of the annular reaction space is the same from the bottom to a top of the annular reaction space. It is unclear how both scenarios can exist simultaneously (emphasis added). Note instant Figure 2 shows the cross-sectional area of the annular reaction space increasing from a bottom of the annular reaction space to a top of the annular reaction space, i.e., the annular ring defining the annular reaction space at the bottom of the inner cylinder has a smaller diameter inner ring since the inner cylinder is of greater diameter at said bottom while the annular ring defining the annular reaction space at the top of the inner cylinder has a larger diameter inner ring since the inner cylinder is of smaller diameter at said bottom. Thus, the cross sectional area of the annular reaction space increases (the width of the annular ring becomes larger) from a bottom of the annular reaction space to a top of the annular reaction space. Moreover, note instant Figure 3 shows the cross-sectional area of the annular reaction space increasing from a bottom of the annular reaction space to a top of the annular reaction space, i.e., the annular ring defining the annular reaction space at the bottom of the inner cylinder has a smaller diameter outer ring since the inner cylinder and the outer cylinder are both of smaller diameter at said bottom while the annular ring defining the annular reaction space at the top of the inner cylinder has a larger diameter outer inner ring since the inner cylinder is of smaller diameter at said bottom. Thus, the cross sectional area of the annular reaction space increases (the diameter of the annular ring becomes larger) from a bottom of the annular reaction space to a top of the annular reaction space. Thus, claim 1 is generic to the embodiments of Figures 2 and 3. However, contrary to the subject matter of claims 6 and 10, the cross sectional area of the annular reaction space is not the same from the bottom to a top of the annular reaction space since this cross sectional area is increasing from a bottom of the annular reaction space to a top of the annular reaction space as determined above. The examiner would agree, however, that the spacing distance between an outer ring (defined by the inner diameter of the outer cylinder) and an inner ring (defined by the outer diameter of the inner cylinder) of the cross section of the annular reaction space 24 is equal [or the same] from the bottom to the top as seen in Figure 3 and as described in instant [0034]. This certainly does not apply to the embodiment of Figure 2. Perhaps claiming that the spacing distance is the same as disclosed in [0034] is the intent of pending claims 6 and 10, but claims 6 and 10 fail to make that clear and as written appear mutually exclusive to the subject matter of claim 1 since the cross sectional area of the annular reaction space seen in Figures 2 and 3 varies [not the same but increases] from the bottom to a top of the annular reaction space as mandated by independent claim 1. Claim 6 and 10: does “a cross sectional area of the annular reaction space” have any relationship to “the cross sectional area of the annular reaction space [that] increases from a bottom of the annular reaction space to a top of the annular reaction space” as recited in claim 1 or are different cross sectional areas being referred to? New claim 13: A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. For example, the Board has held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited “said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for” was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). Claim 13 is of indeterminate scope since it is unclear what “change of outer diameter of the variable-outer-diameter inner cylinder” is included or excluded by the claim language. Thus, the metes and bounds of this claim is so unclear as to obscure the specific subject matter the claim encompasses. Furthermore, since this “change” is a variable defined by an undefined “special function curve” based on an unspecified “conservation of momentum in fluid flow”, the recited “change” can be deemed a reference to a undefined variable, thus clam 13 defines the subject matter thereof with regard to an undetermined/unspecified variable or mathematical curve (see MPEP 2173.05(b)). Drawings Upon reconsideration of the RCE, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.83(a) since the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. The subject matter of amended claim 1 {the driving pumps connected to the first inlet pipe and the second inlet pipe are not shown). The pumps can be depicted in the appropriate drawings Figures by one of the following legends, symbols, or the like: [AltContent: textbox (PUMP)] PNG media_image1.png 57 58 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 72 88 media_image2.png Greyscale INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES Replacement Drawing Sheets Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified. Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and centered within the top margin. Annotated Drawing Sheets A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets. Timing of Corrections Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application. If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, and 14-15 would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action in view of the arguments filed with the RCE. Claims 6, 10, and 13 are of indeterminate scope under 112(b) and cannot be determined allowable at this time. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 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, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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. /CHARLES COOLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1774 20 February 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 31, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 11, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599147
MANUFACTURE OF NON-DAIRY FROZEN DESSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600059
MIXING ACCESSORY FOR A DRUM OF A CONCRETE MIXER HAVING HELICAL FINS WITH FINGERS EXTENDING THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589523
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A RUBBER COMPOUND USED FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF AN ARTICLE MADE FROM RUBBER OR A PNEUMATIC TIRE TECHNICAL SECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577969
MANIFOLD FOR A HYDRAULIC VIBRATION GENERATING DEVICE OR HYDRAULIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569817
HYDRODYNAMIC CAVITATION GENERATING DEVICE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
79%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+15.0%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1486 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month