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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-4) in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged. The restriction requirement is now made FINAL with Claims 5-13 now withdrawn from further examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 3, the recitation of, “the nozzle” should recite, “the variable nozzle” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 3, the recitation of, “the nozzle” should recite, “the variable nozzle” to provide formal antecedent basis.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of,
“at least one actuator” in Lines 1-2 unclear if this is the same one previously recited in Claim 2 For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean the same one. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to say, “the at least one actuator”.
“the radial flow width” in Line 3 is unclear if this is the “flow width” previously recited in Claim 2. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean the same one. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to say, “the
“the first radial flow width” in Line 4 is unclear if this is the “first flow width” previously recited in Claim 2. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean the same one. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to say, “the first
“the second radial flow width” in Line 4 is unclear if this is the “second flow width” previously recited in Claim 2. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean the same one. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to say, “the second
**Any and all claims rejected above under 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4 are allowed.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
366
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art considered to be Bailey (WO 1983000721A1) discloses a turbine (figure 1 also reproduced above) comprising:
a runner (12, figure 1) configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (rotational axis); and
a variable nozzle (14, figure 11 also reproduced above) configured to produce a flow (see flow arrows, figure 11) when fluid passes through the variable nozzle toward the runner (see figures 1 and 11) and, the flow having a circumferential length (circumferential length of nozzle opening 26, figure 11) at an exit of the variable nozzle that is greater than a flow width at the exit of the variable nozzle (see vertical width of nozzle opening 26, figure 11), the flow width at the exit if the variable nozzle being perpendicular to the circumferential length (see figure 11).
Bailey fails to disclose the variable nozzle configured to produce a sheet flow, wherein the flow width is adjustable between a first flow width and a second flow width, where the first flow width is greater than the second flow width. The instant application distinguishes from the prior art by providing a sheet flow to cause the runner to spin as opposed to using one or more circular jets as in the prior art. Therefore, it is not known in, nor obvious from the prior art to construct a turbine as claimed.
Claims 2 and 4 are also allowed by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 1,706,355 discloses an impulse turbine (see figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-3735. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights