DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 11/26/2025 which has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7 are pending in the application. Claims 6 and 7 are new.
-The drawing objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 1 accordingly.
-The specification objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending the abstract and specification accordingly.
-The claim objection has been partially withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 1-5 accordingly.
-The claim interpretation has been partially withdrawn due to applicant removing the term “means” followed by function from claims 1-3.
-The 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 1 accordingly.
-The 112(b) rejection has been partially withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 1-5 accordingly.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 1, the implied phrase “Disclosed is” should be deleted. Further, in line 2, the legal phraseology “comprises” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-In paragraphs [0014]; [0016]; [0017]; [0021]; [0095]; [0096]; [0098]; [0112]; [0117]; [0118]; [0119]; [0121]; [0122]; [0124]; [0125]; [0126]; [0127]; [0128]; [0129]; [0130] and [0132], the drawing reference characters need to be corrected as shown in the drawing figures, i.e., 671 should be 671 and 891 should be 891.
-In paragraph [0031], “sside” should be changed to “side”.
-In paragraph [0033], between the terms “of” and “propeller”, either the term “the” or “a” should be deleted to correct grammar in paragraph.
-In paragraph [0061], the first occurrence of the term “Figure” should be deleted.
-In paragraph [0081], line 5, the term “spher” is misspelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 at least one bearing channel and bearing groove as recited in claim 1 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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-In claim 1, the term “of” should be deleted from the phrase “comprising of” in lines 5 and 27.
-In claim 1, line 44, the term “of” should be inserted between terms “more” and “the” to correct grammar.
-In claim 2, the term “of” should be deleted from the phrase “comprising of” in line 5.
-In claim 5, line 6, the limitations “inverter a” and “inverter b” should be changed to “reversing valves” as recited in claim 1 (based on reference characters in claim 1).
-In claim 5, line 6, the parenthesis after the term “valve” should be deleted.
-In claim 5, line 7, the term “lower” should be inserted before the term “left (73)” as described in specification [0100].
-In claim 6, line 5, the term “regulator” should be inserted after the limitation “energetic step” as recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-7 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.
-Claim 1 recites the limitations “at least one bearing channel and bearing groove…..”. Based on the original disclosure as filed 6/26/24, it is unclear as to where support for this limitation can be found, the examiner has found support for the term “bearing sphere” in the original disclosure, but not bearing channel or groove. Please clarify where support in the original disclosure can be found for this limitation as recited.
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 1-7 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 as amended still doesn’t meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute. The essential inquiry pertaining to this requirement is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. Currently, the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, especially with the recited alternatives within the claim, i.e., “optional electric generation and propulsion”; “at least one propeller device configured to receive hydraulic pressure and apply thrust to a surrounding fluid of a marine or air vehicle”; “optionally, one or more wheel and propeller devices” and “a human-power or engine input” and in combination with the additional alternatives as recited. The claim currently as written is ambiguous at best and it is unclear as to what the scope of coverage is suppose to be pertaining to the limitations as recited.
-Claim 1 recites the limitations “a reversing valve to” and “a reversing valve b”, it is unclear as to what the letters “to” and “b” are referring to. Examiner suggest applicant change these limitations to recite “two reversing valves (78, 79)”. Note: reference characters (“to” and “b” which are not part of current drawings) should be put in parenthesis, see MPEP 608.01(m). However, they would still not be given patentable weight during examination, so it would be better to change limitations as suggested by examiner to avoid further rejection based on double inclusion limitations.
-Claim 3 recites the limitation "said information from the level" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 3 recites the limitation “the generator/engine” in line 6, however, claim 1 recites the limitation “motor/generator and generator/motor”. Please amend accordingly to maintain scope consistency of the limitations between claims.
-Claim 3 recites the limitation "the free passage" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due “a free passage regulator” being recited in claim 1 and not the passage itself.
-Claim 3 recites the limitation "the energetic passage" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due “an energetic step regulator” being recited in claim 1 and not a passage.
-Claim 5 recites the limitation “pipe a and pipe b channels”. It is unclear as to what the letters “a” and “b” are referring to, please clarify and amend accordingly. Examiner suggest applicant change these limitations to recite “two pipe channels (74, 75)”. Note: reference characters (“a” and “b” which are not part of current drawings) should be put in parenthesis, see MPEP 608.01(m). However, they would still not be given patentable weight during examination, so it would be better to change limitations as suggested by examiner to avoid further rejection based on double inclusion limitations.
-Claim 6 recites the limitation "the energetic step" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due “an energetic step regulator” being recited in claim 1 and not the energetic step itself.
-Claim 7 recites the limitation "the set of regulators" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due to “a free passage regulator” and “an energetic step regulator” being recited separately in claim 1 and not as “a set”.
Note: based on the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above and in particular the lack of clarity as to the metes and bounds of what claim 1 is covering in scope pertaining to applicant’s invention, claims 1-7 are not considered allowable. Examiner has conducted additional search pertaining to claims as amended and the prior art cited doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to meet the limitations as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Vallori 202501374021, Figures 2-4 discloses devices similar to the present invention. However, the earliest filing date for this prior art (11/8/22) is after the earliest effective filing date (4/18/22) of the present invention.
-KR 101518378, Figures 3, 5 and 6 and JP 2007120708, Figures 7 and 8 both show that it is well known in the art to provide a hydraulic transmission having a rotor and pinion arrangement similar to what is recited in claim 1.
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 TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 March 2, 2026