DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Interview on 18 November 2025 with Attorney Norman Van Treeck indicated that applicant did not intend to file claim amendments pre-examination.
Drawings
The drawings include figures 1-5 and 7-20 but do not include a figure 6. The drawing numbers should be relabeled to reflect that a total of 19 figures are present.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
A substitute specification including the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because of numerous problems in grammar, nomenclature, and formatting.
The following include problems of a substantive nature which speak to the description of the disclosed structure of the invention.
Paragraph 0025 recites “The said invention has two additional alternative gyroscopic axes -A2- and - A3- as proof of the same effect as -A1-. The alternative axes do not convey any innovation less or more than one with respect to the other (among the three types) as a second filing (in an indefinite time) with the same scope and with a gyroscopic axis that will come from the remaining two, is condemned by any examining Agency in the absence of a technological background.” The paragraph is incomprehensible. It is unclear whether applicant is referring to the claimed axis or to filing dates or to limitations from the examining agency. It is unclear how these elements are related to each other in this paragraph.
Par 0033 refers to sliding arms (4-4a-4c) and centrifugal loads (W1). Then later refers to centrifugal arms (4-4a-4c – W1). It is unclear whether applicant intends W1 to be a centrifugal arm or a centrifugal load, or both.
Par 0034, recites “centrifugal masses (W1, 2 or 3).” It is unclear whether the centrifugal masses are elements 2 and 3, or whether applicant intended to refer to elements “W2 or W3.”
Applicant refers to axis (2b-1-2b). This number is not present in the drawings and it is unclear what the specific sequence of element numbers is meant to represent. What does the “-1-“ indicate? What does the second “2b” indicate?
Par 0034 recites at the end “As known, Power -P- is called:” This phrase ends with a colon which indicates there should be more words that follow. However, applicant has ended the paragraph at the colon and started the next paragraph immediately after. It is unclear whether the beginning of the next paragraph is intended to join with the colon or start a new independent paragraph.
Par 0040 recites a gyroscopic axis “Th2-2at-2c-2a-2-1-2-2a-2c-2at-Th2.” It is unclear what the sequence of element is meant to indicate. Conventionally an axis is a line. Geometrically that line is defined by two points on that line, or as the axis of a shaft. The number of elements numbers applicant has included are far more than is required to define an axis. It is unclear whether applicant is intending to define an axis or some other collection of elements that requires that many element numbers.
Par 0044 recites an alternative gyroscopic axis “2ef1-2c-2d-2-1-2-2d-2c-2ef1”. It is unclear what the sequence of element is meant to indicate. Conventionally an axis is a line. Geometrically that line is defined by two points on that line, or as the axis of a shaft. The number of elements numbers applicant has included are far more than is required to define an axis. It is unclear whether applicant is intending to define an axis or some other collection of elements that requires that many element numbers.
Par 0033 refers to “the section (1) of which (axis) passes through the bearing” while par 0046 refers to “the functional part (1) of the axis carries the axes (2d).” It is unclear whether (1) is intended to refer to the same element or not.
Par 0051 refers to “The incoming power to the system sets the axis (S1) in rotation and through the gyroscopic axis (2d-1-2d) the (inadvertently) axis – Carrier (S2) is also set in motion.” What does the term “(inadvertently)” meant to convey? Is applicant referring to an unwanted, inadvertent, action that occurs which they want to prevent. Is applicant referring to motion that is caused inherently? Is applicant referring to a potential state caused by an inadvertent action, and what their response is. Does it mean something else entirely?
Par 0052 refers to “the axes I Carriers (S1-S2).” This appears to be the first times that applicant uses the name “I.” What does the “I” refer to?
Par 0054 recites “the centrifugal force as a measure (Ftp = m;U2/R).” The formula Ftp = m;U2/R is not recognizable as a formular for centrifugal force. The elements “;” are not used is algebraic formula, and applicant has not stated what the “;” or any other variable is meant to represent.
Par 0055 recites “F(p2- also without coupling, when the power -P- is doubled.” Applicant does not include a closing parenthesis. It is unclear what applicant intends to express.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0004 refers to two filing numbers “20110100378” and “20110100380.” The specification does not indicate the public database or the patent authority to which those numbers reference or belong. Amend the specification to include sufficient citation information for those numbers.
Paragraph 5 refers to a [sic] floating” disc. Amend the specification to properly include a second quotation mark, in order to properly mark the desired language.
Paragraph 0009 refers to a figure 6 which is not present. The reference to figure 6 should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-9 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
In this case:
Claim 3 (dependent on claims 1 and 2) does not refer to claims in the alternative only.
Claim 4 (dependent on claims 1 to 3) does not refer to claims in the alternative only, and also depends on another multiple dependent claim (claim 3).
Claim 5 (dependent on claims 1 and 2) does not refer to claims in the alternative only.
Claim 6 (dependent on claims 1, 2 and 5) does not refer to claims in the alternative only, and also depends on another multiple dependent claim (claim 5).
Claim 7 (dependent on claims 1 and 2) does not refer to claims in the alternative only.
Claim 8 (dependent on claims 1, 2 and 7) does not refer to claims in the alternative only, and also depends on another multiple dependent claim (claim 7).
Claim 9 (dependent on claims 1 to 8) does not refer to claims in the alternative only, and also depends on another multiple dependent claim (claims 3-8).
Accordingly, the claims 3-9 have not been further treated on the merits.
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1-9 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.
In this case, Claims 1-9 are presented in multiple sentences rather than one sentence as required.
Claim 1 recites “a gyroscopic mechanism consisting of the gyroscopic axis in short (2b-1-2b) type -A1- in connection with the disk (11) and the carrier shafts (S1-S2) through the channels (3c-2c) using the balls (Rc2).” “The arms (4-4a-4c) with the centrifugal masses (W1, 2, 3) and the coupling plates (5), as well as those proposed for use on the one hand the gyroscopic axis (Th2-1-Th2) of type -A2- with the arms (E4) with the toothed rules (Tk), the mass (W1),” “and on the other hand the gyroscopic axis (2d-1-2d) type-A3- with the sliding arm (8), the rods (10) and the guides (6-7) support each arm, while the shafts (S1-S2) is mounted on the bearings (R ).”
It is unclear whether applicant has claimed three alternative embodiments or whether these structures are meant to be in a single embodiment. The first part refers to elements related to gyroscopic axis type -A1- with a first axis (2b-1-2b, is in fig 5, 7, 9 and 10; See applicant’s Specification, par 0034-0037). The second part refers to elements related to gyroscopic axis type -A2- with a different axis (Th2-1-Th2; which is in fig 4; See applicant’s Specification, par 0038-0043). The third part refers to “on the other hand the gyroscopic axis type -A3- with the sliding arm (8)” on the third axis (2d-1-2d, par 0044-0050).
The claims then recite “whichever type of -A1-, -A2-, or -A3- gyroscopic axis it carries, will perform the same transition by setting the piston pistons in variable reciprocation.”
If applicant has claimed three separate alternative embodiments, it is unclear which elements of the claims applicant intends to be in which embodiment due to the narrative form of the claims and the use of non-standard grammar that does not follow U.S. patent claim convention. If applicant has claimed a single embodiment, it is unclear how the elements of A1, A2, and A3 are intended to act in relation to each other, because it is also unclear which elements belong to A1, A2 and A3.
Due to the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art (See MPEP 2173.06). The rule is that a rejection should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). In this case, it is not clear whether there are one or several separate alternative embodiments in the claim; as such it is not clear which elements applicant intends to claim in the alternative with which other elements. It would not be proper to apply a prior art rejection under these circumstances.
The lack of a prior art rejection does not indicate allowability of applicant’s claims.
In US practice, the first recitation of an element of a claim is proceeded by the indefinite article “a” or recited as a plurality. Applicant does not follow this practice consistently for a large number of elements in the claims. Because of this, it is unclear when applicant is introducing a new element or referring to a previously recited element throughout the claims. For the limited purpose of examination, each new limitation which recites a structure using a word that has not been recited previously, will be considered a newly claimed structure.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the use of both dashes and parenthesis renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations enclosed in dashes are also parenthetical or are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Y/C" in the third to the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "-CVT-" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "-RES-" in the fourth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the (Pump)” in the fifth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the (Pump)” in the fifth line of the claim. In claim construction, elements in parenthesis are used to mark elements that are not limiting in the claim. However, here no other elements in the claims are linked to the definite article. The definite article and the parenthesis give opposite indications of intended meaning. It is unclear whether the parenthetical “(Pump)” is intended to be a limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 uses the possessive pronoun “its” (line 5) and the pronoun “it” in claim 1 (line 16 and 18). It is unclear what noun applicant intended to replace with the pronoun in the claims, or whether all pronouns refer to the same noun.
Claim 1 recites “the piston pistons.” It is unclear whether applicant intends to claim one piston or a plurality of pistons.
Claim 1 recites “a Torque Converter” in the second to last line of the claim. It is unclear whether this is the same or different than the “Gyro Torque Converter” which is the main apparatus of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “to repeat the work (as a linear Pump).” It is unclear whether the parenthetical “as a linear Pump” is intended to be a limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “two additional proposed axis” in line 6 of the claim. The term “additional” implies a previous listed axis, however there is no previous axis listed in the claim. It is unclear whether applicant intended to refer to an axis earlier in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the gyroscopic axis” it is unclear whether it refers to one of the previous listed axis (two additional proposed axis in line 6 of the claim) or an additional axis.
Due to the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art (See MPEP 2173.06). The rule is that a rejection should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). In this case, it is not clear whether there are one or several separate alternative embodiments in the claim; as such it is not clear which elements applicant intends to claim in the alternative with which other elements. It would not be proper to apply a prior art rejection under these circumstances.
The lack of a prior art rejection does not indicate allowability of applicant’s claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746