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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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:
means for defining a sealed chamber in claim 1.
input means in claim 1.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the housing body" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said inner cylindrical surface" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “high” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “high axial forces” in claim 1 has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “high” as it is unclear what defines a “high” axial force.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner cylindrical bore" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the accelerated output" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the exit" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said output end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "its exterior surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the interior surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the entire length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the central axis of rotation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a viscous fluid lubricant" in line 3. There is already sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1, and thus it is unclear if there is another lubricant being used or if this is the same lubricant.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the rear shaft bearing" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art (U.S. 2004/0164178, US 2002/0179118, and US 2016/0008826), disclose the nozzle assembly, a hollow cylindrical housing with an inner cylindrical bore and a front cap member, tubular shaft rotating coaxially within the housing, having input and output ends further including a spray nozzle head at the output, bearings, impellers/turbines, and a stator tube. The prior art fails to specifically disclose “a speed brake mechanism, coaxially configured with said tubular shaft within said sealed chamber, for applying a retarding force to the tubular shaft to prevent its rotational speed from exceeding a desired range, wherein said speed brake mechanism comprises an impeller device connected to said tubular shaft which accelerates the flow of the viscous fluid lubricant in said sealed chamber, a stator tube device attached to the inner cylindrical bore of the nozzle housing, wherein said stator tube device directs the accelerated output flow from the impeller device to a plurality of exit jets configured on the exit end of the stator tube device, and a turbine wheel connected to said tubular shaft and having a plurality of turbine blades, said turbine blades being configured to receive the accelerated output flow of the viscous fluid lubricant from the exit jets and redirect the viscous fluid lubricant back through a central aperture of the stator tube device and back into the impeller device; wherein said turbine blades extract energy out of the accelerated viscous fluid lubricant imparting a countervailing torque onto the tubular shaft.” The speed brakes defined structural makeup with the impeller device, stator tube, and turbine wheel and how they function together along with the flow of lubricant in the system was not found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights