DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 17 November 2025.
Claims 1-12 are canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 13-26 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10767654. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 contains all the limitations of claim 13. With respect to the additional features in the Patent number 10767654, Claim 1 is obvious over the Instant Claim 13 as the Patent Claim 1 otherwise anticipates the Application Claim 13. (See MPEP 804 II. B. 1)
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10767654. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 contains all the limitations of claims 15, and the range of claim 16 falls within the range of claim 8. With respect to the additional features in the Patent number 10767654, Claim 8 is obvious over the Instant Claims 15 and 16 as the Patent Claim 8 otherwise anticipates the Application Claim 15 and 16. (See MPEP 804 II. B. 1)
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11536281. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 23 contains all the limitations of claim 20. With respect to the additional features in the Patent number 11536281, Claim 23 is obvious over the Instant Claim 20 as the Patent Claim 23 otherwise anticipates the Application Claim 20. (See MPEP 804 II. B. 1)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-26 would appear to be allowable upon overcoming the non-statutory double patenting rejection(s) above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 13:
at least one interrupter disposed between the at least one gas intake opening and the at least one gas discharge opening, to prevent gas from being transported from the at least one gas discharge opening to the at least one gas intake opening;
at least one outlet channel disposed in the at least one interrupter for removing the gas enclosed in at least one of the impeller cells adjacent to the at least one outlet channel from the side channel into the at least one gas discharge opening;
at least one venturi assembly for vacuuming the gas enclosed in at least one of the impeller cells adjacent to the at least one outlet channel out of the side channel into the at least one gas discharge pipe via the at least one outlet channel; and
at least one valve coupled with the interrupter, the at least one valve configured to prevent a backflow of the gas from the at least one gas discharge pipe into the side channel;
Regarding Claim 20:
at least one interrupter disposed between the at least one gas intake opening and the at least one gas discharge opening, to prevent gas from being transported from the at least one gas discharge opening to the at least one gas intake opening;
at least one outlet channel disposed in the at least one interrupter downstream from the at least one gas intake opening and upstream from the at least one gas discharge opening for removing the gas enclosed in at least one of the impeller cells adjacent to the at least one outlet channel from the side channel into the at least one gas discharge opening; and
at least one valve coupled with the interrupter, the at least one valve configured to prevent a backflow of the gas from the at least one gas discharge pipe into the side channel;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Basteck (DE 19708953 A1) and Sixsmith et al (US 4306833 A1).
The Examiner notes Basteck is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar side channel machine arrangements see Page 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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 E. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights