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 .
Claim Objections
There are instances of typographical errors or minor informalities noted in the claims. Suggested corrections are identifiable via strike-through, underline, and double brackets. Please consider the suggestions.
Claims 6-9, 11-13 each use a version of the phrasing “the structure is configured to another structure” which is not grammatically correct. Standard English a structure is configured as, to be, for use as , to function as, etc. Correction is required. Suggestions are identifiable below.
Claim 14 is objected to as it reads as a method step and appears to be reiterating the limitation of claim 11. The structure is clearly configured to be installed on a ship, as a ship is not actually required by the claim. It is suggested the claim be amended to reflect the intended use.
Claim 5 is objected to because the vortex dynamic propulsion structure comprising the pipe and the guide tube is now adding two vortex dynamic propulsion structures that would each inherently comprise its own pipe and guide tube. This raises an issue as to exactly how many pipes, guide tubes etc. are required in claim 5. To clarify this issue, Examiner suggests the following amendments to claim 1, 5, 9:
amending claim 1 to read “A system comprising [[A]] a vortex dynamic propulsion structure comprising…”
amending claim 5 to read “The system according to claim 1, wherein two vortex dynamic propulsion structures are connected….”
amending claim 9 to read “The system according to claim 5, wherein the respective guiding tubes are configured to be connected
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details of two vortex dynamic propulsion structures (each comprising a round pipe and a guiding tube inserted tangentially into the round pipe as detailed in claim 1) the two vortex dynamic propulsion structures connected with their respective fluid inlets coupled together, as claimed in claim 5.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim recites “the combined vortex dynamic propulsion structure”. There is lack of antecedent basis for the term in the claims. Examiner a limitation introducing what appears to be a combined structure is introduced in claim 5. Claim 13 depends from claim 6 which depends from claim 1.
Claims 5, 9, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “The vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 1, wherein two vortex dynamic propulsion structures are connected with their respective fluid inlets coupled together,
said guiding stream is configured to be injected through the guiding tube in the round pipe separately and change the flow direction and speed in said round pipe.”
The claim language renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, because two vortex propulsion structures are being coupled together, and it is unclear into which guiding tube the guiding stream is configured to be injected, in what direction, tangentially, each guide tube is facing, and how exactly the flow direction and speed change in the round pipe. For example, which pipe of the two dynamic propulsion structures is “said round pipe”? Correction/clarification is required. While claim 9 attempts to offer some insight, claims 9, 11 and 14 fail to cure the deficiency.
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, 4-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox et al. (US 3,342,032), hereinafter Cox.
Regarding claim 1, Cox discloses a vortex dynamic propulsion structure, comprising:
a round pipe having a fluid inlet at one end and a fluid outlet at the other end, wherein said fluid outlet is larger than the fluid inlet in size and wherein, in use, a main stream flows through said round pipe (Figs. 5, 9-10) ; and [[ ; and]]
a guiding tube, the guiding tube inserted tangentially into the round pipe (70, 81, 83), wherein a guiding stream is configured to be injected through the guiding tube in the round pipe and transformed into a vortex (Examiner notes the structure is configured to create a vortex, i.e., turbulence in the form of a spiral or helical path, as is evidenced by at least col. 4, ln. 20, via the introduction of air under atmospheric pressure into the guiding tube),
wherein the vortex is configured to advance along an inner surface of the round pipe and configured to accelerate a core static fluid in the round pipe, becoming the main stream, and wherein the mainstream is configured to merge with the vortex to suck in external fluid from the fluid inlet (indicated by the arrows in at least Figs. 5 and 9; see col. 6, ln. 22-38; see also col. 4, ln. 49-54).
Regarding claim 4, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 1, wherein an accelerating ring is installed around the round pipe (66, col. 4, ln. 21), and
said guiding stream is configured to be injected through the guiding tube in the round pipe and transformed into [[an]] the accelerating ring tangentially (Fig. 5, Fig. 9, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 1, wherein two vortex dynamic propulsion structures are connected with their respective fluid inlets coupled together (as in Fig. 9; Examiner notes even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966),
wherein said guiding stream is configured to be injected through the guiding tube in the round pipe separately and change the flow direction and speed in said round pipe (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 1, configured to be installed on a ship to push the ship by the counterforce of the mainstream in the round pipe (Examiner notes the thrust which propels a boat, at least col. 6, ln. 33).
Regarding claim 7, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 1, wherein is configured to be attached to a rudder to control the direction of an exhaust flow (Fig. 21; see also baffle 33, trim flap 30, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 1, comprising a turning axis installed configured to freely turn the vortex dynamic propulsion structure to control the direction of a ship. (swivel connection 91, Fig. 17). (Examiner notes amendment suggestions are directly from Applicant’s specification.)
Regarding claim 9, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 5, wherein the respective guiding tubes are configured to be connected (54, col. 5, ln. 50).
Regarding claim 11, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 5, configured to be attached to a ship to push the ship by the counterforce of the mainstream in the round pipe (Examiner notes the thrust which propels a boat, at least col. 6, ln. 33).
Regarding claim 12, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 6, wherein the is configured to be arranged at a rudder to control the direction of the exhaust flow (Fig. 21; see also baffle 33, trim flap 30, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 6, comprising a perpendicular turning axis configured to turn the vortex dynamic propulsion structure or the combined vortex dynamic propulsion structure and control the direction of the ship (swivel connection 91, Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 14, Cox discloses the vortex dynamic propulsion structure according to claim 5, wherein the vortex dynamic propulsion structure is installed on a ship to push the ship by the counterforce of the main stream in the round pipe (Examiner notes the thrust which propels a boat, at least col. 6, ln. 33).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 6: In arguendo, should Applicant argue a rudder is instead connected to the fluid outlet of said round pipe of claims 1 and 6 to control the direction of the exhaust flow, then claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox as applied to claims 1 and 6, respectively, and further, in view of Eggers et al. (US 3,020,714), herein after Eggers.
Eggers teaches a device for controlling an exhaust flow in the same field of endeavor, including a rudder connected to a fluid outlet of a round pipe to control the direction of the exhaust flow (articulated flaps 3-4 and 5-6; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the vortex dynamic propulsion structure disclosed by Cox (above in claims 1 and 6) with the rudder connected to a fluid outlet of a round pipe to control the direction of the exhaust flow, as taught by Eggers, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the vortex dynamic propulsion structure disclosed comprises the rudder connected to the fluid outlet of the round pipe to control the direction of the exhaust flow. The benefit being the predictable outcome of the capability to dynamically deflect the exhaust in a desired direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the claim objections, the objections are withdrawn. However, please note new instances of objection in light of the claim amendments detailed in the appropriate section.
Regarding the drawing objections, the claim amendments have obviated the objection. Examiner notes a pump is still not illustrated in the figures. Please note new instance of drawing objection in light of the amendments to claim 5.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, the instances of indefiniteness have been obviated via the amendments. Note the instance of indefiniteness in claim 13 detailed in the 112 section. The rejections due to the “can be” terminology and the method terminology are withdrawn in light of the amendments. However, please note new instance of rejection of claim 5 in light of the claim amendments detailed in the 112 section.
Regarding the arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 rejections they are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Of note, at the bottom of page 7 Applicant states the claims are amended to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art of record. However, it appears the amendments are merely to overcome claim/drawing objections and to clarify 112 issues. The scope of the invention remains unchanged. Listing critical characteristics and functions of the present invention does not amount to an argument, particularly if the functions occur “by nature”, i.e., inherently or if said characteristics and functions spring from using the apparatus in a method that is not claimed. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Additionally noted, none of “a mutual feedback effect” , “minimization of guide stream input”, or “maximization of main stream output” are claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642