Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/038,735

Material Mover

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 25, 2023
Examiner
LEE, GEOFFREY S
Art Unit
3746
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Paddlemover LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
205 granted / 333 resolved
-8.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
381
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 333 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Amendment filed on 8 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-15, and 21-25 are pending. Election/Restrictions Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 October 2024. Claim Interpretation PNG media_image1.png 406 452 media_image1.png Greyscale Applicant’s fig 2A Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 15, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drachko (US 2010/025199). Claim 1, Drachko discloses a material mover (compressor, fig 43, par 0233; compressor pumps, etc., par 0011, 0013) assembly, comprising a chamber having an inlet (18) and an outlet (19 via valves 29); a first paddle (5); and a second paddle (6), wherein the first paddle and the second paddle are positioned in and configured to rotate circumferentially in the chamber (par 0053, rotate around shaft 7, see fig 2-6) over a plurality of rotation cycles (the pump operates by the paddles continually rotating through 360 degrees, par 0084-0088), a rotation cycle is a 360 degree rotation of the first paddle and the second paddle (360 degrees is conventionally a rotation, the paddles rotate beyond multiples of 360, par 0084-0088 ), each of the first paddle and the second paddle, if not static (fig 2 and fig 3 show 6 stationary as 5 moves, fig 4 and fig 5 show 5 stationary as 6 moves), each rotate at a varying rate (the angular velocities of the arms 4 continually vary and create corresponding continually rotational oscillations in pistons 5 and 6, par 0157) in a repeating pattern over a rotation cycle (repeating during each revolution, par 0180), a relative motion of the first paddle and the second paddle causes material to be pulled into the chamber via the inlet and pushed out of the chamber via the outlet in a forward direction (fig 43, par 0129, 0233), and the first paddle and the second paddle each comprise a distal end configured to close the inlet and the outlet (fig 7-fig 11 shows one paddles 5 and 6 functioning to open and close the inlet and outlet for the subchambers 1-4 in the pumping cycle; each paddle 5 and 6 is depicted with a distal end nearest the outlet and inlet) to the chamber during each rotation stroke (fig 7 -11 shows how the paddles close off three subchambers of the chamber from an open port during each portion of the cycle, par 0172-0176; closing off a subchamber meets the plain meaning of “closing” the chamber under a BRI, applicant has not claimed the extent to which a chamber is closed off or when that that chamber is closed off; applicant’s disclosed invention necessarily opens ports and closes ports in order to move fluid into and out of the chamber for pumping; therefore closing cannot reasonably refer to absolute closure of a port during the entire rotation cycle). Claim 3, Drachko discloses the material mover assembly according to claim 1, wherein as the first paddle rotates, the second paddle is static or nearly static for at least a portion of a first paddle rotation cycle, and wherein as the second paddle rotates, the first paddle is static or nearly static for at least a portion of a second paddle rotation cycle (fig 2 and fig 3 show 6 stationary as 5 moves, fig 4 and fig 5 show 5 stationary as 6 moves). Claim 7, Drachko discloses the material mover assembly according to claim 1, comprising an eccentric gear assembly (fig 1 and fig 2, eccentric offset portion 8, par 00156, 0158) coupled to a concentric output drive assembly (output shaft 7 or shafts 2 and 3, par 0156, 0158), wherein a proximal end of the first paddle and the second paddle are coupled to the concentric output drive assembly (pistons 5 and 6 are connected to the drive shafts 2 and 3 via rods 10; drive shafts 2 and 3 are connected to shaft 7 via carrier 9 and planetary gear 11, par 0156), and the eccentric gear assembly and the concentric output drive assembly are configured to control the rotation cycle repeating pattern (par 0054). Claim 8, Drachko discloses the material mover assembly according to claim 1, comprising a planetary/epicyclic gear assembly (planetary gear 11 and offset eccentric portion 8, par 0156, 8 is eccentric, par 0158) coupled to a concentric output drive assembly (drive shafts 2 and 3 are concentric, par 0024, 0156), wherein a proximal end of the first paddle and the second paddle are coupled to the concentric output drive assembly (fig 1, pistons 5 and 6 connect to drive shafts 2 and 3, par 0156), and the planetary/epicyclic gear assembly and the concentric output drive assembly are configured to control the rotation cycle repeating pattern (par 0156, par 0180). Claim 9, Drachko discloses the material mover assembly according to claim 1, comprising a differential gearbox (planetary gearbox with connecting rods 10 and arms 4, par 0156; the transmission varies the speeds of rotary pistons 5 and 6 individually to make the pump work, par 0158; the independent speeds caused by the gearing make the gearing meet the plain meaning of differential), configured to control the rotation cycle repeating pattern (par 0180). Claim 10, Drachko discloses the material mover assembly according to claim 1, wherein the rotation cycle repeating pattern is adjustable (the pattern can be changed to different gear ratios, par 0051, 0073; ratio ½, par 0080; ratio 2/3, par 0100; ratio ¾, par 0120; changing the ratio changes the rotation, par 0053). Claim 15, Drachko discloses the material mover according to claim 1, wherein the material is one or more of a gas, a gas/particulate mixture, a liquid, or a particulate solid (compressor for air or gases, par 0011, 0233). Claim 21, Drachko discloses the material mover assembly according to claim 1, wherein the chamber comprises a cylinder-like or a sphere-like shape (the working chamber has an internal annular surface, par 0014, 0015, 0044, 004). Claim 22, Drachko discloses the material mover assembly according to claim 21, comprising a gear assembly (planetary gear 11 and offset eccentric portion 8, par 0156, 8 is eccentric, par 0158) coupled to a concentric output drive assembly (drive shafts 2 and 3 are concentric, par 0024, 0156), wherein a proximal end of the first paddle and the second paddle are coupled to the concentric output drive assembly (fig 1, pistons 5 and 6 connect to drive shafts 2 and 3, par 0156), and the gear assembly and the concentric output drive assembly are configured to control the rotation cycle repeating pattern (par 0156, par 0180). Claim 23, Drachko discloses the material mover assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first paddle and the second paddle each comprise an arc-shaped distal end (the pistons 5 and 6 have radial end-face seals, par 00135), configured to align with an interior surface of the chamber (reasonably the pistons 5 and 6 align with the internal face of the chambers in order to seal, par 0136). Claim 24, Drachko disclose the material mover assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first paddle distal end and the second paddle distal end are in contact with an interior surface of the chamber (the pistons 5 and 6 have end face seals, par 0136; reasonably the sealing indicates that there is physical contact sufficient to seal; this aligns with applicants disclosure of “close contact, minimizing by-pass leaks”, See bottom paragraphs of pg 4 and pg 9 of Applicant’s filed specification). Claim 25, Drachko discloses the material mover assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first paddle distal end and the second paddle distal end are configured to perform as sleeve valves towards opening and closing the inlet and the outlet (a sleeve valve is a valve which slides to cover and uncover an inlet or outlet at different stages of the cycle; the pistons 5 and 6 have side faces which open and close the ports, par 0136; the side faces sliding along the chamber perimeter meet the plain meaning of “sleeve valve”, and appear to be in alignment with applicant’s disclosure of “sleeve valve” on page 9 of the originally filed specification; See definition of “sleeve valve” obtained from https:///www.merriam-webster.com/ on march 5 2026.). 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drachko in view of Ellingboe (US 5,657,000) Regarding claim 5, Drachko discloses the mover assembly according to claim 4. Drachko does not disclose wherein the assembly comprises a step motor or a servo motor, and wherein the rotation cycle repeating pattern is electronically controlled. Ellingboe teaches that a conventional D.C. servo motor is a drive motor (36), and controller (68) for a positive displacement occlusion type pump which gives a wide speed range and high peak torque (c 6 ln 34-36). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the compressor power rotation of Drachko with a d.c. servo motor and motor controller to control the motor taught by Ellingboe for the predictable result of controlling and driving rotation of the pump of Drachko. The combination further makes obvious that the electric motor controller conventionally controls the speed of the pump, the conventional speed control of the pump in the combination meets the limitation wherein the rotation cycle repeating pattern is electronically controlled, because the speed of the motor obviously controls the speed of the paddles and thereby controls the speed of the rotation cycle repeating pattern. Claim 6, Drachko discloses the mover assembly according to claim 1, wherein the assembly comprises … a gear assembly (planetary gear set, par 0054), and wherein the gear assembly is configured to control the rotation cycle repeating pattern (par 0054). Drachko is silent on a constant speed electric motor. Ellingboe teaches that a conventional D.C. servo motor is a drive motor (36), and controller (68) for a positive displacement occlusion type pump which gives a wide speed range and high peak torque (c 6 ln 34-36). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the compressor power rotation of Drachko with a d.c. servo motor and motor controller to control the motor taught by Ellingboe for the predictable result of controlling and driving rotation of the pump of Drachko. The combination further makes obvious that the electric motor controller conventionally controls the speed of the pump, such that the motor can be controlled to any speed as well as operate at a constant speed as claimed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 “means the entire chamber of the material mover assembly is configured to be complete closed ot the inlet and the outlet during a rotation cycle.” Applicant is arguing unclaimed subject matter. Applicant’s amendments are directed instead to the definition of a rotation cycle, and to “a distal end configured to close the inlet and the outlet to the chamber during each rotation cycle.” Applicant does not recite the term “entire” nor does applicant claim “completely closed” or structure in the claim to distinguish over the broader interpretation under the prior art. The limitation is “first paddle and the second paddle … distal end configured to close the inlet and the outlet to the chamber during each rotation cycle” over the prior art. The term “close” and the term “during” are both broad terms that are commonly used in the mechanical arts to refer to closing or partially closing a part of a space and the term “during” only refers to the overlapping occurrence of events or processes. There is not sufficient structure in the claim to limit to structures that the “entire chamber” of the material mover is configured to be completely closed to the inlet and outlet during a rotational cycle. In order for the claims to be limited by the feature of “complete closure” to mean the entire chamber, then applicant must claim that feature in order for it to be considered limiting. 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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800. 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, Essama Omgba can be reached on (469) 295-9278. 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. /GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 25, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 02, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 06, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 08, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595790
FLUID CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595787
Diaphragm Pump
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590585
CARTRIDGE STYLE FRONT COVER AND COUPLING CAVITY SLEEVE FOR AUTOMOTIVE SUPERCHARGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590578
FLUID END WITH TRANSITION SURFACE GEOMETRY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590593
PRESSURE MULTIPLIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+17.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 333 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