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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2nd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle argument is that the cited art is not for the same claimed purpose or is utilized in a different context than the claimed invention, and therefore it would not be obvious to arrive at the claimed invention. This argument is not persuasive. As it stands, the claims do not recite any specific structure required for utilization in the context Applicant argues differentiates with the art. The invention is only directed to “a helical cylinder having a plurality of cylinders that helically rotate around the same rotational axis”.
Further, Engelbart discloses that the diameter of the cylinders can be adjusted as necessary, and Kato teaches art that is analogous to Engelbart which shows the tube exits extending along the rotational direction while the cylinders are arranged in a helical fashion around the drum.
However, with Applicant’s amendments that “each of the cylinders helically rotates along the rotational axis, the Examiner has provided additional rejection.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (US 3647081) in view of Kato (US 4022689).
Regarding claim 4;
Engelbart discloses a helical cylinder (30) having a plurality of basic cylinders (2) that helically rotate around the same rotational central axis (axle 24), wherein each of the basic cylinders has an inlet for an inflow of a fluid and an outlet for an outflow of the fluid (inlet 5, outlet not shown but disclosed), a cylinder body between the inlet and the outlet is closed (Figure 3 shows the cylinders as closed), the number of revolutions of a helix over an entire length of the helical cylinder is M where M is a positive real number, and the number of basic cylinders is N where N is a natural number, and each of the cylinders helically rotates along the rotational axis (see Figures 1-3 which shows the cylinders having revolutions greater than 1 and there being a natural number of cylinders; see also disclosure which states multiple times the “hoses” are wound around the entire cylinder and stacked in layers, and the winding/helical wrapping being along the rotational central axis).
Engelbart fails to teach a diameter of the basic cylinder gradually decreases from an inlet side to an outlet side, and an outlet portion of the basic cylinder is provided with an outlet section in which the basic cylinder extends parallel to the rotational central axis.
Engelbart further discloses that the diameter of the cylinders can be selected and adjusted to be a certain size (“If the inside diameter of the hoses to be coiled are selected in the new device large enough to exclude with certainty any obstructions by fouling, and if the hoses are coiled helically in multiple layers, possibly leaving certain interstices, then an extremely large surface is obtained in a limited space for the development or uptake of biological turf”). Kato teaches an analogous rotating helical cylinder with a plurality of closed cylinders. The cylinders (27) having a predetermined diameter and length so as to accord with the length of said cylindrical member (33).
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having a diameter of the basic cylinder gradually decreases from an inlet side to an outlet side, and an outlet portion of the basic cylinder is provided with an outlet section in which the basic cylinder extends parallel to the rotational central axis solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the pressure adjusts along the length. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cylinders of Engelbart to have the a diameter of the basic cylinder gradually decreases from an inlet side to an outlet side, and an outlet portion of the basic cylinder is provided with an outlet section in which the basic cylinder extends parallel to the rotational central axis as Engelbart and Kato teach the dimensions can be modified and because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Engelbart in view of Kato teaches the helical cylinder according to claim 4 above. Engelbart further discloses the N basic cylinders are spaced apart from each other in the same phase (Figure 3, see the stacks of cylinders which then are spaced apart from one another with “spacing” 6, and the spacing is defined as the same phase as the cylinders are aligned along the circumference).
Regarding claim 7, Engelbart in view of Kato teaches the helical cylinder according to claim 4 above. Engelbart further discloses the cross-section of the basic cylinders is circular (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8;
Engelbart in view of Kato teaches a “propeller” which comprises the helical cylinder according to claim 4.
Engelbart fails to teach a casing surrounding the helical cylinder.
Kato teaches various embodiments with a series of helically wound cylinders around the singular cylindrical body. Additionally, Kato teaches an embodiment with a casing surrounding the cylindrical body (42). Such a casing allows for the helical wound cylinders to be bundled together (see Figures 8 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the propeller of Engelbart such that a casing surrounds the helical cylinder as taught by Kato or the purposes of keeping the cylindrical windings together.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 100394526).
Regarding claim 4;
Kim discloses a helical cylinder (Figures 1 and 3) having aa cylinder that helically rotate around a rotational central axis (8), wherein the cylinder has an inlet for an inflow of a fluid and an outlet for an outflow of the fluid (inlet 7, outlet 10’), a cylinder body between the inlet and the outlet is closed (Figure 3 shows the cylinder as closed), the number of revolutions of a helix over an entire length of the helical cylinder is M where M is a positive real number, and the number of cylinders is N where N is a natural number, and each of the cylinders helically rotates along the rotational axis with the cylinder helically rotating along the rotational central axis (see Figures 1 and 3 which shows the helix rotating around the rotational axis at least once). The diameter of the cylinder gradually decreases from an inlet side to an outlet side (Figure 3), and an outlet portion of the basic cylinder is provided with an outlet section in which the basic cylinder extends parallel to the rotational central axis (see the outlet 10’ which is parallel with the rotational central axis).
Kim fails to teach a plurality of cylinders that helically rotate around the same rotational axis.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). In this instance, the cylinder is utilized to transport fluid to the outlet for the sake of propulsion for the propeller. The duplication of such cylinders then would not produce an unexpected result because the utilization of another cylinder to helically wrap around the rotational axis would merely provide more propulsion because of greater mass of fluid. As such, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the helical cylinder of Kim such that a plurality of cylinders that helically rotate around the same rotational axis because the mere duplication of parts has been held to be obvious whereby an unexpected result is achieved for the purposes of increasing the mass of fluid to increase the propulsive power of the propeller.
Regarding claim 5;
Kim teaches the helical cylinder according to claim 4 above.
Kim fails to teach the N cylinders are spaced apart from each other in the same phase.
The utilization of the multiple cylinders provides for improved propulsion. While individual helical paths generate an axial force, a balanced multi-helical design can be engineered so that these forces oppose and effectively cancel each other out. This minimizes net axial thrust on the drive shaft and bearings, reducing friction, wear, and the need for heavy-duty thrust bearings. The gradual and continuous engagement of multiple flow paths or thread surfaces leads to smoother power transmission and less vibration compared to single-path designs or traditional bladed propellers. In order to properly balance the rotor, then, the helical cylinders provided in equal phase spaced apart allows for this. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the N cylinders of Kim such that they are spaced apart from each other in the same phase for the purposes of improved balancing as the helical cylinder rotates.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the helical cylinder according to claim 4 above. Kim further discloses at least one of the cylinder has a circle or polygon cross-section (see Figure 3 whereby the cylinder includes circle cross-sections, but also “polygon” cross-sections depending on the diagonal/plane of the cut).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a propeller (claim 1) comprising the helical cylinder of claim 4 above and a casing (17) surrounding the helical cylinder.
Conclusion
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 JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745