DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 were filed with the amendment dated 01/13/2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that WO 2022126019 (“Taylor”) is directed to a gasifier and not an eductor. The examiner agrees that Taylor is directed to a reformer (204) that is described as acting like “a venturi ejector” (see Taylor at page 14, lines 22-23).
However, as written, claim 1 is confusing as to its meaning and scope. The examiner suggests adding additional claim language regarding the structure of the eductor found in Fig. 1 of the application. For example, language could be added stating: “the method comprising: providing an eductor comprising a venturi structure with a venturi portion and an inlet portion, an inlet conduit with an inlet nozzle extending inside the century structure, the inlet portion comprising a suction port for the flow of an inducted gas, and a gas conduit connected to the inlet conduit upstream of the inlet nozzle, and a throat, wherein a cross-sectional area of the throat remains constant throughout its length and includes an inlet opening at a junction of the throat with a convergent nozzle and an outlet opening at an intersection of a divergent nozzle and the throat; (for example, this could be added in line 3 before “injecting an amount…”). The examiner also suggests amending “injecting an amount of compressed secondary gas through the gas conduit connected to the inlet conduit upstream of the inlet nozzle into the primary motive liquid…”
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have created new claim rejections under 35 USC 112b, which are set forth below.
In view of the claim amendments (as best understood), the rejection over WO 2022126019 (“Taylor”) is withdrawn.
The rejection is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement refiled on 01/14/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein that has been lined out has not been considered.
The examiner notes that copies of most of the non-patent literature documents cited on the IDS were received on01/14/2026. The remaining non-patent literature documents that were not submitted are the documents lined out.
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 1-6 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 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. For example, see the format of the claims in U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0354736.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “with and without gas injection” renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear what is being required by the phrase “with and without gas injection.” Is gas injection not required?
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “process improvement is measured by eductor gas outflow, with and without gas injection into liquid motive force with controlled eductor exit pressures” renders the claim indefinite. The scope of the phrase/sentence is not clear. Is the claim attempting to limit what eductor gas outflow is achieved. If so, what are the limits? What is the scope and meaning of “controlled eductor exit pressure?” It is not clear how the eductor exit pressure is controlled.
Dependent claims 2-6 are rejected for being dependent upon rejected claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,764,058 discloses a method of using a venturi assembly with an inlet (at 18), and input for material to be mixed (at 27/12) and an injection port upstream of the input for material to be mixed. The injection port (20/17) injects compressed air from a source (22) into a passage (17). However, the venturi assembly is for mixing and waste of sewing machine threads (cut threads 25, trimmed edges 27) and not directed to mixing an inducted gas with a primary motive liquid.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,186,772 discloses an eductor with an upstream gas inlet at vacuum break valve (37). The vacuum break valve does insert a gas into the motive liquid prior to entry of the primary liquid into the eductor. However, the vacuum break valve (37) allows for the entrance of air at atmosphere. Thus, there is no compressed gas being injected as required by the method claim.
U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0149906 discloses an eductor with an input port (21) downstream of liquid intake end (5) of the eductor tube (4) and upstream of the additional motive liquid port (13). The input port (21) adds chemicals to be mixed, not a compressed gas.
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 JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753