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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B (figure 26) in the reply filed on April 13, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “inlet body portion that is removably received with the thrust reducer conduit” recited in claims 27 and 83; the “removable sleeve” recited in claims 28 and 84 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 27-29, 57-60, 70, 72, 83, 84 and 92-98 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 recites the limitation "blasting gas" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a predetermined pressure range” in line 2. It is uncertain how to distinguish between a pressure range and a predetermined pressure range. The claim provides no structure or manner in which to distinguish that a pressure range is predetermined. Predetermination requires a process of predetermining. The preamble is directed to an apparatus. The claim appears to cross two statutory classes of inventions.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the blasting gas" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "area" (two occurrences) in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…selected to emit the blasting gas from the nozzle outlet to produce a supersonic jet” in lines 8-9. It is uncertain what is limited by “selected.” It is uncertain whether the claim is directed to a selection process or an apparatus. The preamble is directed to an apparatus. A “selected” would be limited by a selection process. The claim appears to cross two statutory classes of inventions. Additionally, the claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the function of producing a supersonic jet. Presumably, not all ratios are capable of producing a supersonic jet. A supersonic jet can only be produced with a proper pressure source and proper convergent/divergent nozzle.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “sufficient” in line 12. The determination of what is sufficient is subjective because sufficiency would depend on operating conditions and structural parameters undefined by the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "sufficient length and diameter" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim appears to limit “sufficient length and diameter” by way a functional result, i.e., the remainder of the claim following “sufficient length and diameter.” The claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the end result/function, because, presumably, not all length and diameter are “sufficient.” The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
The term “adjacent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The location/distance limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "surrounding atmosphere" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "thrust" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “adjacent” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The location/distance limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a nozzle exit area” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “area of the nozzle outlet” recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "nozzle throat area" in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “area of the throat” recited in claim 1.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "outlet area" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "throat area" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “constraining the nozzle to produce a supersonic jet” in line 5. It is uncertain what is limited by “constraining.”
Claim 29 recites the limitation "blasting gas" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “sufficient” in line 6. The determination of what is sufficient is subjective because sufficiency would depend on operating conditions and structural parameters undefined by the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “a supersonic jet” in line 6. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “supersonic jet” recited in line 5.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “an outlet end” in line 8. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “nozzle outlet” recited in lines 6-7. An “outlet end” would inherently be a part of the “nozzle outlet.”
Claim 29 recites the limitation "sufficient length and diameter" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim appears to limit “sufficient length and diameter” by way a functional result, i.e., the remainder of the claim following “sufficient length and diameter.” The claim fails to recite method steps to accomplish the end result/function, because, presumably, not all length and diameter are “sufficient.” The method step recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "sub-atmospheric pressure" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “adjacent” in claim 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The position/distance limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "surrounding atmosphere" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "thrust" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "operational thrust" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "blasting gas" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation “constraining the nozzle to produce a supersonic jet” in lines 6-7. It is uncertain what is limited by “constraining.” The structure limited by the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited by the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation “sufficient” in line 9. The determination of what is sufficient is subjective because sufficiency would depend on operating conditions and structural parameters undefined by the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "sufficient length and diameter" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim appears to limit “sufficient length and diameter” by way a functional result, i.e., the remainder of the claim following “sufficient length and diameter.” The claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the end result/function, because, presumably, not all length and diameter are “sufficient.” The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "sub-atmospheric pressure" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “adjacent” in claim line 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The position/distance limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "surrounding atmosphere" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "thrust" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “adjacent” in claim 58 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The position/distance limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the predetermined pressure range" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 60 recites the limitation “a nozzle exit area” in lines 1-2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “nozzle outlet area” recited in claim 57.
Claim 60 recites the limitation "nozzle throat area" in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “throat area” recited in claim 57.
Claim 70 recites the limitation “a nozzle exit area” in lines 1-2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “nozzle outlet area” recited in claim 57.
Claim 70 recites the limitation "nozzle throat area" in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “throat area” recited in claim 57.
Claim 72 recites the limitation “a nozzle exit area” in lines 1-2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “nozzle outlet area” recited in claim 57.
Claim 72 recites the limitation "nozzle throat area" in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “throat area” recited in claim 57.
Claim 92 recites the limitation "the length of the thrust reducer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “body being of sufficient length” recited in claim 1.
Claim 92 recites the limitation "the diameter of the thrust reducer" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “body being of sufficient…diameter” recited in claim 1.
Claim 93 recites the limitation “in use” in lines 1-2. The preamble of the claim is directed to an apparatus. It is uncertain whether the claims is directed to an apparatus or an method of use. The claim appears to cross to statutory classes of inventions.
Claim 93 recites the limitation "pressure equalization" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 93 recites the limitation "atmosphere" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 94 recites the limitation “axial location” in line 2. The claim fails to recite/define an axis to determine “axial.”
The term “high” in claim 94 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The pressure regions limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 94 recites the limitation "the upstream side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “low” in claim 94 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The pressure regions limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 94 recites the limitation "the downstream side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 94 recites the limitation "the anti-thrust force" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 95 recites the limitation "the length of the thrust reducer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “body being of sufficient length” recited in claim 29.
Claim 95 recites the limitation "the diameter of the thrust reducer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “body being of sufficient…diameter” recited in claim 29.
Claim 96 recites the limitation “axial location” in line 2. The claim fails to recite/define an axis to determine “axial.”
The term “high” in claim 96 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The pressure regions limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 96 recites the limitation "the upstream side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “low” in claim 96 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The pressure regions limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 96 recites the limitation "the downstream side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 96 recites the limitation "the anti-thrust force" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 97 recites the limitation "the length of the thrust reducer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “body being of sufficient length” recited in claim 57.
Claim 97 recites the limitation "the diameter of the thrust reducer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “body being of sufficient…diameter” recited in claim 57.
Claim 98 recites the limitation “axial location” in line 2. The claim fails to recite/define an axis to determine “axial.”
The term “high” in claim 98 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The pressure regions limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 98 recites the limitation "the upstream side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “low” in claim 98 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The pressure regions limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 98 recites the limitation "the downstream side" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 98 recites the limitation "the anti-thrust force" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with idiomatic errors.
Limited time for search and examination precludes a complete editorial review. Applicant is required to review and amend ALL of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Any indefiniteness that Applicant fails to correct will be subject to a final rejection in the next Office action.
Applicant should not misconstrue any lack of art rejection as an indication of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights