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 .
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 it should avoid using phrases which can be implied such as “Disclosed is.” Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, 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. See 37 CFR 1.75(i).
Regarding claim 1, line 3, “a second rotor” should be changed to the second rotor since the second rotor was previously introduced in line 2.
Regarding claim 4, line 2, the should be added before “second rotor.”
Regarding claim 5, line 2, the should be added before “second rotor.”
Regarding claim 8, line 2, “inlet means” should be changed to inlet to maintain terminology used throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 11, line 1, “any one of” should be deleted.
Regarding claim 14, line 1, “any one of” should be deleted.
Regarding claim 18, line 2, “rotor” should be changed to first rotor.
Regarding claim 19, lines 2-3, “inlet means” should be changed to inlet to maintain terminology used throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 19, line 3, “outlet means” should be changed to outlet to maintain terminology used throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 21, line 3, “inlet means” should be changed to inlet to maintain terminology used throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner would like to point out that although “about” is a relative term used in claims 16 and 18, the specification provides a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree outlined in paragraph 0068.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” such that they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: sealing means in claims 4-5 and 10 and ignition means in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3, 7, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-20, and 23 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 3 recites the limitation "the floor of the recess" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the preceding face" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the trailing face" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, line 2, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Examples or preferences are properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the zone of the chamber through which the rotor element travels" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the zone through which the second rotor travels" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the chamber wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, line 2, “the rotational axis” is indefinite. It is unclear if “the rotational axis” is referencing the first axis or the second axis.
Regarding claim 14, lines 2-3, “the rotor” is indefinite. It is unclear if “the rotor” is referencing the first rotor or the second rotor.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “between about 60° and about 120°”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 80°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Additionally, examples or preferences are properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the wall of the chamber" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the outer wall of the first rotor" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the outer wall of the second rotor" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the zone through which the rotor element travels" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the zone through which the second rotor travels" in lines 28-29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, line 50, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Examples or preferences are properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, line 2, it is unclear if “a fluid” is the same fluid recited in line 7 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, line 3, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Examples or preferences are properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 23, line 1, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Examples or preferences are properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 13-14, 16, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allender (US 3,435,808).
Regarding claim 1, Allender discloses a rotary drive apparatus [2] comprising a housing [6], within which is located a first rotor [8] and second rotor [10], the first rotor [8] being rotatable about a first axis (see [12]) and having a rotor element [28] projecting radially therefrom, and a second rotor [10] being rotatable about a second axis (see [16]) parallel to the first axis (see [12]) and in a direction (counterclockwise) opposite to the first rotor [8], the second rotor [10] comprising a recess (col. 6 lines 3-4: “the compression chamber of wheel 10;” also see [Y] in Figure 5) able to receive the rotor element [28], wherein the first rotor [8] and the second rotor [10] and housing [6] define a chamber (col. 5 line 65: “a chamber;” also see [X, A] in Figure 5) around the first rotor [8] through which the rotor element [28] passes, the chamber (col. 5 line 65: “a chamber;” also see [X, A] in Figure 5) having an inlet [42] and an outlet [44] through which a fluid can enter and exit the chamber (col. 5 line 35 - col. 6 line 65 and Figures 1-2, 4-5, and 8).
Regarding claim 2, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first and second rotor [8, 10] are able to remain in sealing engagement during rotation (col. 5 line 71 - col. 6 line 29 and Figures 4-5 and 8).
Regarding claim 3, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rotor element [28] does not contact the floor [Y] of the recess (col. 6 lines 3-4: “the compression chamber of wheel 10;” also see [Y] in Figure 5) during rotation (col. 5 line 71 - col. 6 line 20 and Figures 4-5 and 8; wherein the sealing member [32], not the power lobe [28], contacts the surface arc [Y] of the compression chamber).
Regarding claim 4, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising sealing means [32] able to form a seal between the first rotor [8] and the housing [6] and/or second rotor [10] (col. 6 lines 10-20 and Figures 4-5 and 8).
Regarding claim 5, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising sealing means [32] on the rotor element [28] able to form a seal between the rotor element [28] and the housing [6] and/or second rotor [10] (col. 6 lines 10-20 and Figure 4-5 and 8).
Regarding claim 6, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a shoulder [32] projecting from the first rotor [8] adjacent to the rotor element [28], to at least partially occlude the inlet [42] and/or the outlet [44] during part of a cycle of the first rotor [8] (col. 6 lines 10-20, 30-38, 59-65, and Figure 5; wherein the tip sealing member [32] contributes to the power lobe [28] occluding the intake ports [42] and outlet ports [44] as it passes by).
Regarding claim 7, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the preceding face (see leading side of power lobe [28] in Figure 8) and/or the trailing face (see trailing side of power lobe [28] in Figure 8) of the rotor element [28] comprise a shape which reduces or mitigates drag in the fluid (col. 1 line 64 - col. 2 line 31, col. 6 lines 39-58, and Figure 8).
Regarding claim 13, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inlet [42] and the outlet [44] are located in the zone of the chamber (col. 5 line 65: “a chamber;” also see [X, A] in Figure 5) through which the rotor element [28] travels, and are located to avoid the zone through which the second rotor [10] travels (col. 5 line 61 - col. 6 line 9, col. 6 lines 30-38, 59-65, and Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 14, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inlet [42] and outlet [44] are located on a region of the chamber wall [4’] substantially perpendicular to the rotational axis (see [12]) of the rotor [8] (col. 5 lines 35-44, col. 6 lines 30-38, and Figures 2 and 4-5; wherein the side plate [4’] is perpendicular to the rotational axis (see [12])).
Regarding claim 16, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rotor element [28] occupies a sector of between about 60° and about 120°, preferably about 80°, with respect to the axis (see [12]) of the first rotor [8] (col. 3 line 69 - col. 4 line 33, col. 8 lines 6-10, and Figures Y, 13, and 19; wherein half the power lobe [28] occupies a sector of 30°, thus the entirety of the power lobe [28] occupies a sector of 60°).
Regarding claim 19, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus is adapted to impart rotational energy to the first rotor [8] or the second rotor [10], to draw a fluid through the inlet means [42] and push the fluid out through the outlet means [44], wherein optionally during rotation of the first rotor a shoulder follows the rotor element, and occludes the outlet during part of a cycle of the first rotor (col. 6 lines 30-38, 59-65, and Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 21, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus further comprises ignition means [50] and is adapted to introduce a combustible fluid or mixture of fluids (via carburetion means) through the inlet means [42] for combustion to impart energy onto the rotor element [28] (col. 6 lines 30-65 and Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 22, Allender discloses the use of an apparatus according to claim 1 as a turbine (col. 5 lines 35-37; wherein the rotary internal combustion engine [2] functions as a turbine (i.e., a rotary mechanical device that extracts energy from a fluid and converts it to work)).
Regarding claim 23, Allender discloses the use of an apparatus according to claim 19 as a pump optionally, wherein the fluid is air or an air/oxygen mixture, and the pump is a respirator pump (col. 5 lines 35-37; wherein the rotary internal combustion engine operates as an air pump).
Regarding claim 24, Allender discloses the use of an apparatus according to claim 21 as a combustion engine (col. 5 lines 35-37).
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allender as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Schulz et al. (US 2017/0362974 A1; hereinafter Schulz).
Regarding claim 8, Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus is adapted to introduce a fluid (via carburetion means) through the inlet means [42] to impart energy onto the rotor element [28] (col. 6 lines 30-35 and Figures 4-5). Allender does not disclose the introduced fluid being pressurized. Schulz, however, teaches a similar apparatus [12] comprising an inlet means [48] and a rotor element [34], wherein the apparatus [12] is adapted to introduced a pressurized fluid (via compressor [20]) through the inlet means [48] to impart energy onto the rotor element [34] (paragraphs 0019, 0021-0022, 0026, and Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Allender’s apparatus to introduce a pressurized fluid through the inlet means because Schulz teaches that this configuration compresses the air before it enters the rotary engine (paragraph 0026); wherein it is known in the art that turbochargers force more air into the engine to produce more power for a given engine displacement.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the fluid enters the inlet [42] at an angle offset from the axis of rotation (see [12]) of the first rotor [8], so as to provide more direct pressure on the rotor element [28] (col. 6 lines 30-35 and Figures 4-5; wherein the intake ports [42] are offset (i.e. out of line) from the axis of rotation (see [12])).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising sealing means [36] between the second rotor [10] and the housing [6] (col. 6 lines 21-29 and Figures 4-5 and 8).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising a shoulder [32] projecting from the first rotor [8] adjacent to the rotor element [28], wherein the apparatus optionally comprises two shoulders, projecting from the first rotor on either side of the rotor element (col. 6 lines 10-20 and Figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Allender discloses the apparatus according to claim 8,comprising two rotor elements [28] and two recesses (col. 5 line 72: “diametrically opposed chambers;” also see [Y] in Figure 5) in the second rotor [10] able to receive the rotor elements [28]; or wherein the second rotor has twice the diameter of the first rotor, and the second rotor comprises two recesses able to receive the rotor element (col. 5 line 71- col. 6 line 20 and Figures 4-5).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 19, 20, and 25, respectively, of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,158,102 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Other than the word “substantially” in claims 19 and 25 of the patent, the claim scope of the aforementioned claims is exactly the same.
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.
Claims 1-14, 16, and 19-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15, 17-18, 21, and 23-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,158,102 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate each and every limitation of the claims of the present application as outlined below:
Claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent.
Claim 2 of the present application is anticipated by claim 2 of the patent.
Claim 3 of the present application is anticipated by claim 3 of the patent.
Claim 4 of the present application is anticipated by claim 4 of the patent.
Claim 5 of the present application is anticipated by claim 5 of the patent.
Claim 6 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent.
Claim 7 of the present application is anticipated by claim 6 of the patent.
Claim 8 of the present application is anticipated by claim 9 of the patent.
Claim 9 of the present application is anticipated by claim 10 of the patent.
Claim 10 of the present application is anticipated by claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 11 of the present application is anticipated by claim 12 of the patent.
Claim 12 of the present application is anticipated by claim 13 of the patent.
Claim 13 of the present application is anticipated by claim 7 of the patent.
Claim 14 of the present application is anticipated by claim 8 of the patent.
Claim 16 of the present application is anticipated by claim 21 of the patent.
Claim 19 of the present application is anticipated by claim 14 of the patent.
Claim 20 of the present application is anticipated by claim 15 of the patent.
Claim 21 of the present application is anticipated by claim 23 of the patent.
Claim 22 of the present application is anticipated by claim 18 of the patent.
Claim 23 of the present application is anticipated by claim 17 of the patent.
Claim 24 of the present application is anticipated by claim 24 of the patent.
Additional Subject Matter
Claims 15, 17-18, and 20 are not rejected under art; however, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and/or double patenting and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Graham (3,612,735) which discloses a similar rotary engine with a first rotor having a rotor element which is received in a recess of a second rotor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on 571-270-7878. 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746