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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-18 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 line 5 recites “the air slot”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the air slot” in previous claim limitations, Examiner notes line 3 recites “air slots”. Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1 and hence are also rejected. Claim 6 recites “an alternating way with the air slots around the interior space”. Examiner respectfully submits the term “an alternating way” is indefinite, wherein someone of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to accurately interpret “an alternating way”. Claim 1 line 8 recites “the air slot”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the air slot” in previous claim limitations, Examiner notes line 3 recites “air slots”. Claim 3 recites “the through-hole”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the through-hole” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “at least one through-hole”. Claim 4 recites “the through-hole has a roundish shape”. Examiner respectfully submits the term “roundish shape” is indefinite, wherein someone of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to accurately interpret “roundish shape”. Claim 5 recites “the through-hole”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the through-hole” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “at least one through-hole”. Claim 6 recites “the through-hole”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the through-hole” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “at least one through-hole”. Claim 7 recites “the through-hole”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the through-hole” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “at least one through-hole”. Claim 8 recites “the through-holes”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the through-holes” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “at least one through-hole”. Claim 9 recites “the through-hole”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the through-hole” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “at least one through-hole”. Claim 9 recites “the cross sectional area of the corresponding slurry slot”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the cross sectional area of the corresponding slurry slot” in previous claim limitations. Claim 10 recites “arranged at least mainly radially”. Examiner respectfully submits the term “arranged at least mainly radially” is indefinite, wherein someone of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to accurately interpret “arranged at least mainly radially”. Claim 11 recites “the top blade”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the top blade” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “at least one top blade”. Claim 11 recites “the length of the corresponding through-hole”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the length of the corresponding through-hole” in previous claim limitations. Claim 12 recites “the height of the top blade”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the height of the top blade” in previous claim limitations. Claim 12 recites “the height of the rotor”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the height of the rotor” in previous claim limitations. Claim 14 recites “the bottom surface of the air channel”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the bottom surface of the air channel” in previous claim limitations. Claim 15 recites “the length of the air channel”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the length of the air channel” in previous claim limitations. Claim 16 recites “the air slot”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the air slot” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “air slots”. Claim 17 recites “the cross sectional area of all the air channels”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the cross sectional area of all the air channels” in previous claim limitations.. Examiner notes claims 1 and 17 recites “the air channel”. Claim 17 recites “the cross sectional area of an inlet receiving air in the rotor ”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the cross sectional area of an inlet receiving air in the rotor” in previous claim limitations. Claim 18 recites “ the cross-sectional shape of the slurry slot is at least substantially triangular in smaller rotors, and at least substantially rectangular in larger rotors .”. Examiner respectfully submits that “a rotor” is recited in claim 1, therefore someone of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to accurately determine a cross sectional shape of a slurry slot is at least substantially triangular in smaller rotors, and at least substantially rectangular in larger rotors , wherein “smaller” and “larger” are not accurately described. 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. Clai ms 1- 7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niitti(2004/0112799) taken together with Leiponen et al(5244097) in view of Kallioinen et al(6805243) . Niitti in figures 1 and 2 teaches a rotor of a gas dispersion arrangement, comprising a cover disc (lid element 2) , air slots (air ducts 3) arranged to protrude away from the cover disc, the air slots defining an interior space in the interior of the rotor, an air channel (para 0015 stating “inside the lid element 2, there are also formed channels 4 in order to conduct the air that is supplied via the rotor axis 1 to proceed in to t he air ducts 3) connected to the air slot for supplying air to be dispensed in slurry, slurry slots (slurry grooves 5) arranged between and an alternating way with the air slots around the interior space, the slurry slots being in fluid communication with the interior space. Niitti is silent as to radially extending blades arranged for separating the air slot from adjacent slurry slots . Leiponen et al in figure 2 teaches a rotor of a gas dispersion arrangement, including a cover disc(rotor cover plate 9), air slots (unnumbered) arranged to protrude away from the cover disc, an air pipe (12) to provide air to an air distribution duct, slurry slots (slurry ducts 8) arranged between the air slots, and radially extending blades (rotor blades 7) arranged for separating the air slo t from adjacent slurry slots. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide radially extending blades for the rotor of Niitti in order to provide a mechanism for moving slurry and air flow on an underside of the cover disc of Niitti. Niitt i is further silent as to the cover disc comprises at least one through-hole extending from an upper surface of the cover disc to at least one of the slurry slots . Kallioinen et al in figures 4-6 teaches a rotor of a gas dispersion arrangement, the rotor including a cover disc(unnumbered disc in figures 4-6), radially extending blades (42), and the cover disc including at least one through hole(slots 46) extending from an upper surface of the cover disc (cover disc including rotor body portion 44) to at least one of the slurry slots( column 3 lines 7-10 stating “used to supply gas, usually air, into the rotor and thereby into the slurry introduced therein”. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one through hole for the cover disc of Niitti in order to provide for a mechanism for providing air to at least one of the slurry slots(5) of Niitti. With regards to claim 2, Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al further teaches wherein the through hole has a shape of a polygon. With regards to claim 3, Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al further teaches wherein the through-hole comprises at least one side edge on the upper surface that makes a hole angle with radial direction of the rotor, wherein said angle is in range of —10 ° - +45 ° (noting figure 6 of Kallioinen et al showing an acute hole angle for slot 46) . With regards to claim 4, Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al further teaches wherein the through hole has a roundish shape. With regards to claim 5, Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al further teaches an outmost wall of the through-hole makes an outer diameter angle with direction of the centre axis, wherein said angle is in range of —10 ° - +60 ° (outermost wall shown in figures 6 and 7 with acute angle). With regards to claim 6, Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al further teaches an innermost wall of the through-hole makes an inner diameter angle with direction of the centre axis, wherein said angle is in range of —10 ° - +60 ° (innermost wall shown in figures 6 and 7 with acute angle). With regards to claim 7 , Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al further teaches at least one side wall of the through-hole makes a side wall angle with direction of the centre axis, wherein said angle is in range of -20 ° - +60 ° (side wall shown in figures 6 and 7 with acute angle). With regards to claim 16 , Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al further teaches wherein in the shape of the air slot has a curved shape without any points of discontinuity . With regards to claim 17 , Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al further teaches wherein the air channel is connected to a center air void (center air void in Niitti; para 0006 stating “the lid element is advantageously provided with channels via which the air supplied to the rotor through the hollow axis is made to flow from the center part of the rotor to the air ducts thereof”) for supplying air to said air channel, wherein the center air void is designed and dimensioned such that the cross sectional area of all the air channels is at least substantially equal with the cross sectional area of an inlet receiving air in the rotor. With regards to claim 18 , Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al further teaches wherein the cross-sectional shape of the slurry slot is at least substantially triangular in smaller rotors, and at least substantially rectangular in larger rotors . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-10, 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 recites “wherein total area of the through-holes in relation to the area of the cover disc is in range of 2 % - 40 %. ”. Kallioinen et al teaches through holes passing through a cover disc , however Kallioinen et al does not teach a percentage of through holes in relation to a cover disc, and does not teach or suggest wherein total area of the through-holes in relation to the area of the cover disc is in range of 2 % - 40 % . Claim 9 recites “ wherein area of the through-hole in relation to the cross-sectional area of the corresponding slurry slot is in range of 2 % - 40 %. ”. Kallioinen et al teaches through holes passing through a cover disc , however Kallioinen et al does not teach or suggest wherein area of the through-hole in relation to the cross-sectional area of the corresponding slurry slot is in range of 2 % - 40 % . Claim 10 recites “ wherein the upper surface of the cover disc comprises at least one top blade, arranged at least mainly radially. ”. Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al teaches a cover disc with an upper surface , however Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al does not teach or suggest wherein the upper surface of the cover disc comprises at least one top blade, arranged at least mainly radially . Claims 11 and 12 depend on claim 10 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 10 into claim 1. Claim 13 recites “ wherein t he upper surface of the cover disc is provided with an outer ring that has a height extending away from said upper surface . ”. Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al teaches a cover disc with an upper surface, however Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al does not teach or suggest wherein t he upper surface of the cover disc is provided with an outer ring that has a height extending away from said upper surface . Claim 14 recites “ wherein the bottom surface of the air channel is inclined in relation to the plane of the cover disc in an inclination angle selected in range of 0 ° - 60 ° .”. Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al teaches an air channel, however Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al does not teach or suggest wherein the bottom surface of the air channel is inclined in relation to the plane of the cover disc in an inclination angle selected in range of 0 ° - 60 ° . Claim 15 recites “ wherein the length of the air channel in relation to the diameter of the cover disc is selected in range of 10 % - 30 %. ”. Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al teaches an air channel, however Niitti taken together with Leiponen et al in view of Kallioinen et al does not teach or suggest wherein the length of the air channel in relation to the diameter of the cover disc is selected in range of 10 % - 30 % . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1159 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712707872 . 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. /ROBERT A HOPKINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 December 10, 2025