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 24 September 2025 have been fully considered but the amendment required a new reference, as shown below.
Further, though not explicitly relied upon for the rejection below, it is pointed out that when the central support of Kim is replaced with a conical central support, the blades would inherently have the claimed length variation as the side wall of Kim would remain consistent.
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 blade shape of claim 19 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 3, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0141837), in view of Krebs et al. (“Krebs”; US 3,703,081).
Regarding claim 1: Kim discloses a fluid acceleration system (300, Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (310) defining an inlet, an outlet, and an interior chamber configured to receive a fluid (as fluid flows into and out of the housing chamber);
a rotational element (370, 360) disposed within the interior chamber, the rotational element including:
a central support (360) extending between an upper wall and a lower wall of the housing; and
a plurality of blades (370) coupled to the central support;
a conduit assembly (600) positioned external to the housing, the conduit assembly connecting the outlet to the inlet; and
a driver (320) positioned to drive the rotational element to accelerate the fluid within the interior chamber such that a portion of the fluid flows out of the outlet, through the conduit assembly, and back into the interior chamber through the inlet (paragraph 0052).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the central support has a conical shape and each blade having a respective length extending outward from the conical central support toward a sidewall of the housing, wherein the respective length varies based on a position of the respective blade along the conical central support.
However, Krebs discloses the central support (74, Fig. 3) has a conical shape (shown by 75),
each blade (76) having a respective length extending outward from the conical central support toward a sidewall of the housing (81), wherein the respective length varies based on a position of the respective blade along the conical central support (as the blade length gets smaller from left to right, shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the central support of Kim to be conical, and to have the blades vary in length, as disclosed by Krebs, in order to increase the pressure (column 4, lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 3: Kim modified by Krebs discloses the conical central support, Kim further discloses the conical central support aligns with the inlet and defines an internal support channel that receives the fluid from the conduit assembly (as shaft 360 aligns with the distal end of the inflow 200, shown in Fig. 1, paragraphs 0059-0060).
Regarding claim 15: Kim discloses a door (410) positioned to selectively close the outlet of the housing (Fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Krebs, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Taniguchi (US 2004/0057332).
Regarding claim 2: Kim discloses a housing but does not explicitly disclose the housing defines a plurality of inlets connected to the conduit assembly.
However, Taniguchi discloses the housing (300) defines a plurality of inlets (71, 72, Fig. 9) connected to the conduit assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of Kim to include the plurality of inlets, as disclosed by Taniguchi, in order to increase the flow into the housing.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Krebs, as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Bailey (US 4,344,479).
Regarding claim 4: Kim modified by Krebs discloses the conical central support, but does not explicitly disclose the conical central support defines a support aperture configured to release the fluid into the interior chamber.
However, Bailey discloses the central support defines a support aperture configured to release the fluid into the interior chamber (conical central support 10 includes shaft 27 that has a plurality of apertures 85, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of Kim to include the apertures in the shaft, as disclosed by Bailey, in order to permit increased flow of the liquid.
Regarding claim 5: Kim modified by Bailey disclose support apertures, Bailey further discloses the conical central support defines a plurality of support apertures (85, as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6: Kim modified by Bailey disclose support apertures, Bailey further discloses the plurality of apertures are positioned proximate one end of the conical central support (as 85 runs all the way to the bottom of the central support, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7: Kim modified by Bailey disclose support apertures, Bailey further discloses the plurality of apertures are spaced along at least a portion of a length of the conical central support (as shown in Fig. 2).
Claims 8-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Krebs, as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Cuello et al. (“Cuello”; US 2020/0318054).
Regarding claim 8: Kim discloses a plurality of blades but does not explicitly disclose at least one of the plurality of blades defines an internal blade channel that receives the fluid from the internal support channel of the conical central support, and wherein the at least one of the plurality of blades defines a blade aperture this is configured to release the fluid into the interior chamber.
However, Cuello discloses at least one of the plurality of blades defines an internal blade channel (130) that receives the fluid from the internal support channel of the central support (paragraph 0040), and wherein the at least one of the plurality of blades defines a blade aperture (125) this is configured to release the fluid into the interior chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support and blades of Kim to include the channel and apertures of Cuello in order to better introduce fluid to increase flow.
Regarding claim 9: Kim modified by Cuello discloses blade apertures, Cuello further discloses the blade aperture is positioned proximate a free end of the at least one of the plurality of blades (as Cuello discloses apertures across the blades, Fig. 5A-D).
Regarding claim 10: Kim modified by Cuello discloses blade apertures, Cuello further discloses the blade aperture is positioned proximate a connection between the conical central support and the at least one of the plurality of blades (as Cuello discloses apertures across the blades, Fig. 5A-D).
Regarding claim 11: Kim modified by Cuello discloses blade apertures, Cuello further discloses wherein the at least one of the plurality of blades defines a plurality of blade apertures (as Cuello discloses apertures across the blades, Fig. 5A-D).
Regarding claim 19: Kim discloses each blade, but does not explicitly disclose each blade extends outward along an axis, and wherein each blade has a respective width characterized by a respective leading edge and a respective trailing edge, wherein each respective leading edge is disposed lower than the axis and each respective trailing edge is disposed higher than the axis.
However, Cuello discloses each blade extends outward along an axis (outward), and wherein each blade has a respective width characterized by a respective leading edge and a respective trailing edge, wherein each respective leading edge is disposed lower than the axis and each respective trailing edge is disposed higher than the axis (such as the 45 degree blade in Fig. 3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the blades of Kim to have the angle of Cuello in order to effectively move the fluid in the desired direction.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Krebs, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Scalzi (US 2006/0108809).
Regarding claim 16: Kim discloses an outlet leading to a conduit assembly but does not explicitly disclose a fluid scoop coupled to the housing proximate the outlet, the fluid scoop positioned to direct the portion of the fluid from the interior chamber, through the outlet.
However, Scalzi discloses a fluid scoop (60) coupled to the housing proximate the outlet, the fluid scoop positioned to direct the portion of the fluid from the interior chamber, through the outlet (as shown by the arrows, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlet of Kim to include the scoop of Scalzi in order to better direct the fluid flow.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Krebs as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wieland (US 2015/0001141).
Regarding claim 17: Kim discloses a conduit that receives a pressurized fluid, but does not explicitly disclose a generator positioned along the conduit assembly and that receives the portion of the fluid.
However, Wieland discloses a generator (130, within 106, Fig. 11) positioned along the conduit assembly and that receives the portion of the fluid (W, shown in Fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conduit of Kim to include the generator of Wieland in order to generate electricity from the fluid flow.
Regarding claim 18: Kim modified by Wieland disclose a generator, Wieland further discloses a battery (123, Fig. 3) coupled to the generator (130, paragraph 0042).
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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834