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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, Applicant argues in response to the Drawing Objections that “the amended drawing (i.e., amended figure 2) clearly shows "helix angle β" and "included angle α" in the claims” (Rem. 6).
In response, Fig. 2 of the Replacement Drawings fails to show any feature identified as “β” or “α”. Perhaps Applicant filed the wrong set of Drawings?
Furthermore, in the amended Fig. 2 submitted, Applicant has added points “A,” “E,” “G,” “F,” “D,” “B,” as well as line segment AGDB without appropriately identifying, in the specification, what any of these features may refer to, thereby failing to comply with, at least, 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Applicant is strongly advised to review their submission(s) to the Office.
Applicant’s arguments referencing these points are not found to be persuasive because they do not find support in the disclosure as originally filed. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Next, Applicant asserts that they have “submitted reference documents which show the helix angle” (Rem. 8).
In response, it is noted that in order for the Office to consider the submitted documentation, the references must be listed on a separately-filed Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form. See, e.g., 37 CFR 1.98(b), which requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and details requirements therefor.
However, even with cursory review, it is respectfully noted that Applicant has failed to establish a nexus between the submitted documentation—which appears to relate to screws—and the claimed subject matter—which is related to a hydroelectric turbine—i.e., a completely different field of endeavor.
Applicant’s arguments to this point, especially Applicant’s hand-waving conclusory statement that “[h]elix angle is a well-know term for those skilled in the art,” are therefore found to be unpersuasive.
Regarding the Claim Objections, Applicant asserts that “Applicant has amended claim 1 for clear understanding” (Rem. 8).
Respectfully, the first several elements set forth in the claim have not been separated by a line indentation as required. If Applicant is unclear regarding what amendments are needed, Applicant may contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action to request an interview to discuss these matters. Otherwise, simply stating that an amendment has been made when no amendment has actually been made, fails to resolve the issue and, respectfully, only serves to unduly and unreasonably delay prosecution.
Turning now to the ambiguities raised under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), and specifically regarding the relative terminology used by Applicant, Applicant asserts that several amendments have been made “for clear understanding” (Rem. 9-12).
In response, it is respectfully noted that Applicant’s approach to amending the claims has not served to clarify the metes and bounds thereof. Specifically, Applicant has amended several instances of relative terminology but has simultaneously left many other instances of relative terminology unchanged. This hodgepodge of both relative and non-relative terminology does not serve to clarify the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
In the Final Office Action of 03/03/2025, Applicant was advised to clearly set forth one or more point(s) and/or frame(s) of reference by which to define the descriptors “under,” “lower,” “upper,” etc. An example was even provided1 to assist Applicant. This was disregarded and Applicant has simply either replaced one relative term with another (e.g., replacing “under” with “below”) or deleted what could be a useful relative term (if properly defined) with a much more ambiguous term (e.g., replacing “upper” with “first”). See the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) section below for further discussion.
Some of Applicant’s amendments have also introduced additional ambiguities into the claims—again, see the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) section below for further discussion.
Lastly, regarding the “helix angle” feature(s), Applicant asserts that “Applicant respectfully explains that helix angle is well-known term in the art” (Rem. 13).
In response, respectfully, Applicant has failed to provide a reasoned explanation—based on information provided in the disclosure as originally filed—that would support such a conclusion. As discussed in greater detail below, neither the drawings nor the specification as originally filed appear to explain either what the claimed “helix angle” may be for a “hydraulic machine” or how such a “helix angle” may meet the claimed structural requirements. Put differently, not only do the claims set forth language which is vague and indefinite, but the application fails to provide adequate written description for the ambiguously-claimed subject matter.
Due to this dual failure to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(b) and 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for claimed subject matter which appears to be critical to Applicant’s invention, it appears that patentability would be precluded for the instant invention.
It is the Examiner’s considered opinion that all of Applicant’s arguments have been taken note of, and the substance thereof answered above, pursuant to MPEP 707.07(f). As discussed at length herein, the extensive number of issues present in the instant application, raised under both 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and 35 U.S.C. §112(b), would appear to preclude patentability of the instant invention.
Preliminary Formalities
Claims 1-2 have been amended and are currently pending.
The disclosure as originally-filed fails to provide adequate written description for the claimed subject matter (see below for further discussion). In order to overcome this (and still claim such subject matter), it would appear necessary to add new matter to the disclosure, which is impermissible per 35 U.S.C. §132(a).
Should Applicant desire to pursue the claimed subject matter, filing of a Continuation-in-Part (CIP) type application may allow for addition of new matter and provision of appropriate written description to i) address the deficiencies discussed herein and ii) distinguish the invention from the prior art, while also obviating any new matter issues. See, e.g., MPEP § 201.08, § 211 et seq. for more information.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/06/2026. These drawings are unacceptable.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following may not be an exhaustive list of informalities. It is suggested that the applicant thoroughly review the drawings.
Regarding Figures 1-2, replacement drawing(s) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required. The drawing(s) submitted are not acceptable because:
The drawings have a line quality that is too light to be reproduced (the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction) and/or text that is illegible (reference characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible). See 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p)(1).
The drawings must be reasonably free from erasures and must be free from alterations, overwriting, interlineations, folds, and copy marks. See 37 CFR 1.84(e), (l), and (m).
Reference characters must not interfere with comprehension of the drawing, and should not cross or mingle with lines of the drawing. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).(Specifically, see, e.g., Fig. 1: “α” and “18”; Fig. 2: “F”, “D”.)
N.B. – The issues above were noted in the Final Office Action of 03/03/2025 but have been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Drawings are to be submitted in black ink (see 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1)). Drawings must also have satisfactory reproduction characteristics; and every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined (see 37 CFR 1.84(l)).
N.B. – Due to file type conversion issues, Drawings stored and viewable in Patent Center (which are stored as image file(s)) may differ in image quality from Applicant’s own Drawings file (often uploaded as a PDF document). As such, it is recommended that Applicant view the drawings within Patent Center to determine if there is any image degradation (e.g., pixelation, blurred lines, etc.). This often occurs when the original drawings use color(s) other than pure black and may arise even if lines are drawn in, e.g., dark grey and appear “black”.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Regarding Figures 1-2, 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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
the “annular gap,” the “opening of the shaft sleeve,” and the “second end of the transmission shaft” referenced in claim 1, second page, lines 1-3;
the “power input shaft of the power generator” (see claim 1, p. 2, ll. 7-8);
the “inner peripheral wall of the second opening of the […] passage” (claim 1, p. 2, ll. 10-11);
the “main body of the hub cone housing” (claim 1, p. 2, l. 15);
the “front sides” and the “back sides” of the “blades” (claim 2, ll. 2-3);
“back sides of the helix ribbon blades are inclined relative to the outer surface of the peripheral wall of the hub cone housing (claim 2, ll. 3-4).
N.B. – If the features noted above are currently shown, but not labeled, in the Figure drawn to the elected invention, they should be labeled accordingly.
Applicant should exercise great caution when adding any features to the drawings so as to obviate any future objection under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a).
Regarding Figure 2, the drawing is objected to as failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) because it appears to introduce new matter into the disclosure. Specifically, the line segment AGDB; points E, F; and the outer circle circumscribing “blades 12” does not appear to be supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Furthermore, though Applicant appears to allege that these features relate to “the standard mathematical definition of helix angle” (see p. 7 of Remarks filed 11/11/2024), not only is no “helix angle” shown, Applicant has failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate i) the assertion that the features in question are “standard” or known in the art for a hydroelectric turbine; and ii) that the allegedly “standard definition” would have necessarily applied to the invention in the manner shown in amended Fig. 2.
To overcome this, Applicant may: a) remove the added subject matter; b) indicate where explicit support for the added subject matter may be found in the disclosure as originally filed; and/or c) provide documentary evidence to support Applicant’s amendments to the drawing and explain how the submitted evidence substantiates points i) and ii) above.
Regarding Figure 2, the drawing is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: points “A”, “E”, “G,” “F,” “D”, “B”; the line segment AGDB.
N.B. – It should be noted that the “Annotated Drawing Sheets” do not accurately reflect the changes made relative to the previous version of the Drawings, filed 11/11/2024. Also, the “Annotated” Fig. 2 does not appear to correspond to the “Replacement” Fig. 2.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, each element and/or step should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m).
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the both of the previous Office Actions but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6-7, the phrase “having cone shape” is grammatically incorrect and should be amended to, e.g., —having a [[cone]] conical shape—.
Regarding claim 1, line 7, the phrase “having a cylinder shape” is grammatically incorrect and should be amended to, e.g., —having a cylindrical shape—.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, third page, lines 7-8 and 10-13, the following limitations appear to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
“changes of helix angles of all of the helix ribbon blades at different positions are consistent”;
“maximum helix angles of all of the helix ribbon blades are greater than or equal to 55°, minimum helix angles of all of the helix ribbon blades are smaller than or equal to 25°”.
Notably, the disclosure fails to make clear: i) what a “helix angle” may comprise or ii) how such a “helix angle” may be defined, including iii) relative to what structure(s) the “helix angles” may be defined. The disclosure also fails to clearly define either the “maximum helix angles” or the “minimum helix angles” and how those may be, respectively, “greater than or equal to 55°” or “smaller than or equal to 25°”.
Initially, in the Drawings as originally filed, no “helix angle” is illustrated. Turning to the specification, paragraph ¶ 15 states “the turbine blades are ribbon blades with (20°-25°)-(50°-55°) gradual change helix angles from bottom to top by using the hub bottom surface as the base” (emphasis added). Additionally, ¶ 17 states “The power of the hydropower is a function restricted by various factors, and mainly includes the fall drop, the cone diameter (actually referring to the water passing area), the cone height and the blade ribbons (the width and length and the helix angle capable of being adjusted according to the cone height)” (emphasis added).
In addition to—and perhaps because of—not being idiomatically clear in the English language, the specification, in addition to the originally-filed drawings, fails to resolve the ambiguities noted above.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, it is dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherits the deficiencies thereof.
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 1-2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, 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 grammatical and idiomatic errors. The structure which goes to make up the claimed apparatus must be clearly and positively specified in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
The following examples of language failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are given for Applicant’s benefit. The following, however, may not constitute a complete listing of ambiguous language present in the pending claim(s).
A full revision of the claims, clearly and definitely setting forth the structure which makes up the inventive apparatus, in grammatically- and idiomatically-correct English, is recommended.
Regarding claim 1, lines 2-3, the limitation “a hydraulic energy conversion chamber” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what a “hydraulic energy conversion chamber” may be or comprise.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9, the limitation “the inverted conical water flowing passage, the flush compartment, and the pool are sequentially arranged below the power generation chamber” (underlining showing amendment) is vague and indefinite.
First, Applicant has replaced the relative positional term “under” with another relative positional term “below”. These terms are synonymous and replacement of “under” with “below” fails to clarify the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Instead of taking this approach, Applicant would be better served by clearly and definitely setting forth one or more clear point(s) and/or frame(s) of reference in order to clearly define the terms and associated relative structural features and/or descriptors. This advice was previously provided to Applicant (see Final Office Action of 03/03/2025, section 21).
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear what the “sequen[ce]” required by the phrase “sequentially arranged” may be.
Regarding claim 1, line 11, the limitation “the dam body is located below the support layer plate” is vague and indefinite. As discussed above, Applicant has replaced the relative positional term “under” with another relative positional term “below”. These terms are synonymous and replacement of “under” with “below” fails to clarify the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claim 1, line 15, the limitation “a water-side surface of the dam body is provided with […]” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what a “water-side surface of the dam body” may comprise, including what “water” is being referenced.
Regarding claim 1, lines 25-26, the limitation “a transmission shaft, a waterproof sealing ring, and a shaft sleeve are suspended in the inverted conical water flowing passage” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the several elements listed may be, in fact, “suspended” in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 1, second page, lines 16-19, the limitation “a[[n]] first upwards extends out of one side of the hub cone housing through an upper end cone opening of the hub cone housing and the first end of the main shaft is coaxially and fixedly connected with the second end of the transmission shaft” is vague and indefinite.
First, the phrase “upwards extends out” is not idiomatic and is thus unclear.
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the Final Office Action of 03/03/2025 but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Note also that the term “upwards” is a relative term which renders the limitation indefinite. One or more clear point(s) and/or frame(s) of reference should be given to clearly define the term
Second, Applicant’s deletion of the terms “upper” and “lower” here—as well as throughout the rest of the claim—renders the claim less clear than before. In the previous Office Action, Applicant was advised to clearly set forth one or more point(s) and/or frame(s) of reference by which to define the terms “upper,” “lower,” “top,” “bottom,” “under,” etc. Applicant has failed to do so.
Third, the phrase “a first end of the main shaft upwards extends out of one side of the hub cone housing through an upper end cone opening of the hub cone housing” appears to require the “first end of the main shaft” to extend both “out of one side” and “through an upper end cone opening”—i.e., to extend through two different features (i.e., through the “one side” and through the “upper end cone opening”)—but fails to make clear how a single element may extend “through” two separate areas/features “of the hub cone housing”. Furthermore, this limitation does not appear to be clearly illustrated in the drawings, thereby adding to the lack of clarity.
Regarding claim 1, second page, lines 21-22, the limitation “a second end of the main shaft is located in the hub cone housing or located under the hub cone housing” (underlining showing amendment, emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, as discussed above, Applicant’s deletion of “lower” in favor of “second” renders the claim less clear.
Second, term “under” is a relative term and fails to clearly set forth the structural relationship(s) between the “main shaft” and the “hub cone housing”. See above for further discussion.
Regarding claim 1, second page, lines 23-25, the limitation “an upper portion and a lower portion of the main shaft are respectively fixedly connected with an upper portion and a lower portion of an inner peripheral wall of the hub cone housing through an upper bracket and a lower bracket” is vague and indefinite.
The terms “upper,” “lower,” “inner” are relative positional terms which render the claim vague and indefinite. As no clear point(s) and/or frame(s) of reference is provided by which to define the terms so-described, the claim fails to clearly forth the structural relationship(s) between the claim elements.
Regarding claim 1, second page, line 26, the limitation “a base is fixedly installed on a bottom surface of the pool” is vague and indefinite. The term “bottom” is a relative positional term which renders the claim indefinite. Yet again, Applicant is advised to set forth a frame of reference by which to clearly define all relative positional terms in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, second page, lines 27-28, the limitation “the second end of the main shaft is provided with an upper hemispherical groove, an upper end of the base is provided with a lower hemispherical groove” is vague and indefinite.
First, it is unclear why Applicant deleted one relative positional term “lower” while not addressing the other positional descriptors (“upper” and “lower” describing the “groove” features). As discussed above, Applicant’s deletion of “lower” in favor of “second” renders the claim less clear.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what either the “upper hemispherical groove” or the “lower hemispherical groove” may comprise.
Third, as previously addressed, the descriptors “upper” and “lower” are relative positional terms which render the claim vague and indefinite. Once again, Applicant is advised to clearly set forth a frame of reference by which to define and clearly interpret claim terms described as being “upper” and “lower”.
Regarding claim 1, second page, line 30, the limitation “the lower hemispherical sleeve” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, third page, lines 1-4, the limitation “the support steel ball glidingly cooperates with the upper hemispherical groove in a manner of doing autorotation relative to the upper hemispherical groove and/or glidingly cooperates with the lower hemispherical groove in a manner of doing autorotation relative to the lower hemispherical groove” is vague and indefinite. The phrase “glidingly cooperates […] in a manner of doing autorotation” is not idiomatic and fails to make clear what action(s) and/or functionality is actually being claimed.
Regarding claim 1, third page, line 5, the limitations “the helix ribbon blades extending along the cone,” “the cone” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, third page, lines 7-8, the limitation “changes of helix angles of all of the helix ribbon blades at different positions are consistent” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what the “helix angles” may be or comprise.
Note that, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) section above, the disclosure does not appear to provide adequate written description to resolve this issue. The originally-filed disclosure fails to adequately describe or define what the “helix angles” may be or comprise.
Second, the phrase “changes […] are consistent” is not idiomatic and fails to make clear what the intended metes and bounds of the patent protection sought may be. Furthermore, the claim fails to make clear what it means for “changes” of “angles” of different “blades” specifically “at different positions” to be “consistent” and how whatever this refers to may actually be achieved.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 1, third page, lines 10-13, the limitation “maximum helix angles of all of the helix ribbon blades are greater than or equal to 55°, minimum helix angles of all of the helix ribbon blades are smaller than or equal to 25° ” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
The claim fails to make clear how the “maximum helix angles” and the “minimum helix angles” may be related to each other and, indeed, to the “helix angles of all the helix ribbon blades”. Relatedly, as these relationships have not been made clear, the claim fails to make clear how the “helix angles” may be both “greater than or equal to 55°” and “smaller than or equal to 25°”.
Note that, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) section above, the disclosure does not appear to provide adequate written description to resolve this issue.
Regarding claim 1, third page, lines 15-16, the limitation “water outlet that is communicated with the pool” is not idiomatic and is, consequently, unclear.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “front sides of the helix ribbon blades” and “back sides of the helix ribbon blades” are vague and indefinite. The terms “front” and “back” are relative positional terms which render the claim vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear relative to what other element(s) or feature(s) the terms “front” and “back” may be defined.
Regarding claim 2, it is dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherits the deficiencies thereof.
Conclusion
Applicant should, in response to this Office Action, provide support for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. See MPEP 2163(II)(A). That is, Applicant should specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or feature(s) in the original drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added. See 35 U.S.C. §132(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
March 20, 2026
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 See section 21 of the Final Office Action mailed 03/03/2025.