DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on November 23, 2025. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 18 – 20, 22, 24, and 28 – 33, cancelled Claims 6, 7, 26, and 27, and added Claims 34 – 36. Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 25, and 28 – 36 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous title objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment of the title.
Previous claim objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. New claim objections are presented below.
Previous 112b rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. New 112b rejections are presented below, necessitated by amendment.
With regards to Claim 1, applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the previous grounds of rejection.
With regards to Claim 13, applicant amended the claim to add features of the eductor. The amendment overcomes the 102 of Berhoudar. New grounds of rejection are presented below, necessitated by amendment, and incorporating the Pringle reference. Pringle is one of many references which may have been used. Examiner directs applicant to the “Additional References” section of this office action which describes the deVries, Fukada, Popov, and Lott references.
With regards to Claim 17, applicant argues the energy to turn the turbine is given solely by the liquid air and that the compressor 30 compresses and moves lubricant, not hot gas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lubricant is circulated via pipes 25, 26, and coil 24 for lubrication of bearings 28 (see Col. 2, Lines 30 – 44). The coil 24 uses heat of compression from the compressor to heat the lubricant (Col. 2, Lines 34 – 36). There is a separate pump 29 (see Col. 2, Line 28) which serves to circulate the lubricant. The compressor 30 does, in fact, act to compress gas (Col. 2, Lines 39+: “…pick up the expanded has resulting from the use of liquid air after it has been passed through second section 6 and in forcing the same out and compressing the same…”, see also Col. 3, Lines 68+: “…they draw that portion of the spent gases to be compressed into the impeller…”). As such, the hot gases directed towards the venturi nozzles via pipes 42, 43 are pressurized gases. Given that they are pressurized gases, they will contribute, to some degree, to the rotation of the turbine blades. The rejection of Claim 17 stands as previously presented.
With regards to Claim 24, applicant amended to add that the combustion chambers are not in fluid communication with each other, arguing that Benians does not teach these newly added feature. As necessitated by amendment, examiner directs applicant to the embodiment in Figures 6 – 9 of Benians, slightly different than that of Figures 1 and 2, in which a plurality of combustion chambers (in this case, chambers 1 and 2) perform a sequential combustion operation (as shown in Figure 7), but are clearly not in communication with one another. Though there are other chambers in communication with each other, chambers 1 and 2 are not in communication with each other and thus meet the claim requirements.
With regards to Claim 30, applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 6 should be corrected to: …for compressing gas and delivering the compressed gas…
Claim 1, Line 12: combustor chamber should be corrected to combustion chamber.
Claim 1, Line 20 should be corrected to remove one instance of the word is. Currently the line recites …the first discharge port is is configured…
Claim 5: combustor chamber should be corrected to combustion chamber.
Claim 34, Line 10: combustor chamber should be corrected to combustion chamber.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5, 8 – 11, 24, 25, 28 – 33, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites an intake port, and a first discharge port. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because these elements were already introduced in Claim 1, making it unclear whether Claim 5 refers to the same elements or new elements. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting the intake port and the first discharge port.
Claims 5, 8, and 9 all recite the pressure tank. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because the pressure tank lacks antecedent basis and was removed from the language of Claim 1, upon which these claims depend. For purposes of examination, the language will be interpreted as reading a pressure tank and introducing a pressure tank.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on Claim 9.
Claim 24, Line 2 recites the compressed gas and the combustion fuel, both of which lack antecedent basis due to the rearrangement of the claim language in the amendment. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because these elements lack antecedent basis and have not yet been formally introduced. For purposes of examination, the compressed gas and the combustion fuel will be interpreted as a compressed gas and a combustion fuel, respectively.
Claims 25 and 28 – 33 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on Claim 24.
Claim 30, Line 7 recites the at least one combustion chamber. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because the claim introduced a plurality of combustion chambers and it is unclear which combustion chamber the at least one refers to. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting each combustion chamber.
Claim 35, Line 3 recites the compressed gas and the combustion fuel, both of which lack antecedent basis due to the rearrangement of the claim language. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because these elements lack antecedent basis and have not yet been formally introduced. For purposes of examination, the compressed gas and the combustion fuel will be interpreted as a compressed gas and a combustion fuel, respectively.
Claim 36 recites one or more turbines. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because Claim 1, upon which Claim 36 depends, already requires one or more turbines. It is unclear whether the recitation in Claim 36 refers to these same turbines or different turbines. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting the one or more turbines.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Osborne (US 2499772).
With regards to Claim 17:
Osborne discloses a gas turbine system (Figures 1, 7), comprising:
a plurality of vertical turbines (turbine sections/stages 5, 6), disposed vertically (note that “vertical” is a relative term, and depending on orientation, the turbine of Osborne could be vertical), and joined to a common central rod (shaft 12);
a plurality of sets of eductors (venturi nozzles 16), each set of eductors comprising one or more eductors aimed at a respective one of the vertical turbines (see Figure 1, both stages 5, 6 of the turbines have their own set of a plurality of venturi nozzles 16 arranged circumferentially around an inlet of the respective stage, see Col. 2, Lines 1 – 8);
wherein each of the eductors comprises a gas entry opening (see Figure 7, portion of nozzle 16 closer to jet pipe 17) and an exit opening (see Figure 7, portion of nozzle 16 closer to rotor vanes 10), wherein:
the gas entry opening is configured to receive pressurized gas from a pressurized gas source (compressed air from compressor 30, by way of conduits 42, 43 and circumferential pockets 15, see Figure 1 and Col. 2, Lines 57+); the exit opening is directed toward the respective one of the turbines (as shown in Figures 1 and 7, exit directed towards rotor vanes 10), to release the pressurized gas to turbine in order to cause the respective one of the turbines to rotate (Col. 3, Lines 1 – 3).
With regards to Claim 18:
Osborne discloses at least one of the eductors comprises a liquid entry opening (opening near jet pipe 17 allowing liquid air to be injected, see Col. 3, Lines 33 – 46) configured to receive a liquid (liquid air), such that a mixture of the compressed gas and the liquid is released from the exit opening to the respective one of the turbines (Col. 3, Lines 42 – 46), wherein, for each educator, the liquid enters at the liquid entry opening non-zero angle with the compressed gas (see Figure 1, compressed gas enters from pipe 15 and water enters from jet pipe 17, with these pipes being at right angles relative to one another), such that a movement of the compressed gas from the gas entry opening to the exit opening creates a low-pressure region at the liquid entry opening, to create a suction effect at the liquid entry opening to suck in the liquid and lead the liquid to the exit opening with the compressed gas (this is regarded as functional language which is caused by the structure recited – since Osborne discloses the structure, then the function is also met).
Claims 24, 29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Benians (US 2004/0154306).
With regards to Claim 24:
Benians discloses a gas turbine system (Figures 6 – 9), comprising:
a combustor apparatus (combustion stage 14) comprising a plurality of combustion chambers (chambers 1, 2, Figures 6 – 9), each of the combustion chambers being configured to receive compressed gas (via inlet valves) and combustion fuel (via fuel injection nozzles 42) separately from each other, to generate a respective combustion of the compressed gas, and to separately release the combusted gas (Paragraphs 30 – 53, see also Figure 7) toward a turbine (turbine 16) for rotating the turbine, wherein each of the combustion chambers is configured to have a plurality of discrete sequential combustion cycles (see Figure 7), each combustion cycle having an initial time interval in which the compressed gas and the combustion fuel are received (“charge” and “compound” intervals, see Figure 7), and a final time interval in which the combustion is performed and the combusted gas is released toward the turbine (“injection/transfer”, “exhaust”, and “scavenge” intervals, see Figure 7), the initial and final time interval being sequential to one another (see Figure 7 and Paragraphs 36 – 53, 61);
wherein the combustion chambers are not in fluid communication with each other (see Figures 8, 9, chambers 1 and 2 are not in communication with each other – in this embodiment, odd numbered chambers are in communication with other odd numbered chambers and even numbered chambers are in communication with other even numbered chambers);
wherein the combustion chambers are configured to receive the gas and the fuel at successive time intervals such that the combustion occurs sequentially in at least some of the combustion chambers, and to sequentially release the combusted gas (see Paragraph 10 of Benians: “the combustion chambers are arranged as at least one series and in the, or each, series are operable sequentially”, see also Paragraphs 33, 36, 61, and 62 and Figures 6 and 7 of Benians). This sequencing “will ensure, for example, that the exhaust pulses will be constantly precessing in relation to the rotation, or multiples of revolutions, of the turbine blading, irrespective of the relative speeds or directions of shaft rotation, with a view to minimizing differential heat stresses” (Paragraph 36 of Benians).
With regards to Claim 29:
Benians discloses each combustor chamber comprises:
an intake port (inlet ports 24, Figure 6) configured to be controlled to open for receiving the gas and the fuel during a first time interval and close at the end of the first time interval (via valves 28, see Figure 6, see also Figure 7 of Benians for timing of opening of inlet valves);
a first discharge port (exhaust ports 32, Figure 6) configured to open at a time after the first time interval (see Figures 6, 7 of Benians, exhaust valves 38 opening), when a pressure inside the combustion chamber builds up to a predetermined pressure as a result of the combustion (Paragraphs 38 – 53) and to close when the pressure inside the combustion chamber falls below the predetermined pressure (ld), wherein the first discharge port is configured to discharge the combusted gas out of the combustion chamber, when open (ld).
With regards to Claims 31 and 32:
Benians discloses a compressor (compressor 12) configured to provide the compressed gas to the combustor apparatus, wherein the compressor is not physically integral with the combustor apparatus, and wherein the combustor apparatus and the turbine are not physically integral with each other (as per Claim 10 of Benians, the compressor and turbine each have their own separate housings that are fixed relative to the combustion chambers, implying that the combustion chambers also have their own housings, and all three components of the gas turbine are not “physically integral” under broadest reasonable interpretation).
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 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 of this title, 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 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berhoudar (GB 551643) in view of Osborne (US 2499772) in view of Pringle (GB 2189843).
With regards to Claim 13:
Berhoudar discloses a gas turbine system (Figure 1), comprising:
a source of pressurized gas (from compressor 31 and combustion chamber 16);
at least one eductor (venturi 6) comprising a gas entry opening (conduit 8 from combustion chamber 16, and air inlet 14), a liquid entry opening (water inlet 11), and an exit opening (passage 9 through to passage 5 of the turbine), wherein:
the gas entry opening is configured to receive the pressurized gas;
the exit opening is directed toward blades (turbine blades 1) of a turbine (turbine 3), to release a mixture of the pressurized gas and the liquid to the turbine and cause the at least one turbine to rotate (see Figure 1 and Page 2, Line 20).
Berhoudar does not explicitly disclose the other recited features of the eductor. Pringle (Figure 2) teaches an eductor wherein a plurality of fluids are mixed. The eductor includes a first entry opening (21) for a first fluid, a second entry opening (pipe 16) for a second fluid, a third entry opening (pipe 23) for a third fluid, and an exit opening (11), wherein a path of the first fluid of the first entry opening and a path of the second and third fluids of the second and third entry opening, respectively, is at a non-zero angle upstream of a meeting point of the fluids (as shown in Figure 2, fluid entering from nozzle 21 is at right angle with pipes 16 and 23, with the fluids all meeting at a converging portion of venturi 13 just downstream of nozzle 14). Pringle teaches the eductor further comprises: a first inner nozzle (21) configured to compress the first fluid upstream of the meeting point; a converging nozzle downstream of the meeting point (converging portion of venturi 13 immediately downstream of nozzle 14); and a diverging diffuser (diverging portion of venturi 13 downstream of converging portion) downstream of the converging nozzle and upstream of the exit opening. Berhoudar mixes three fluids together (air, water, and combustion products). MPEP 2143B teaches it is obvious known substitutes for one another in order to yield predictable results. In this case, Pringle teaches a similar eductor as Berhoudar, with slightly varying positioning of injection of the various fluids. The device of Pringle would readily mix and entrain the fluids of Berhoudar to yield the predictable result of directing the mixed gases to the turbine for rotation and cooling the combustion gases as necessary. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Berhoudar by replacing the eductor with the eductor of Pringle to yield the above predictable results.
With regards to Claim 14:
The Berhoudar modification of Claim 13 teaches a throat having constant cross section, the throat being located between converging nozzle and the
diverging diffuser (see Figure 2 of Pringle, the venturi 13 transitions from a converging nozzle to a diverging nozzle and the transition point is a throat having a constant cross-section under broadest reasonable interpretation).
With regards to Claim 16:
The Berhoudar modification of Claim 13 teaches the turbine comprises at least one vertical turbine (turbine 3 of Berhoudar) having at least one Pelton blade (blade 1 of Berhoudar), wherein the at least one eductor (eductor of Pringle) is configured to release the mixture of the pressurized gas and the liquid to the turbine substantially horizontally to impact the at least one Pelton blade, in order to cause the turbine to rotate along a vertical axis (note that “vertical” and “horizontal” are relative terms which impart no orientation to the structure other than their relation to one another – the turbine 3 of Berhoudar could be “vertical”, and as shown in Figure 1, the turbine 3 rotates about an axis/shaft 35 that is perpendicular to an injection direction of the venturi 6).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berhoudar (GB 551643) in view of Osborne (US 2499772) in view of Pringle (GB 2189843), further in view of Osborne (US 2499772).
With regards to Claim 15:
The Berhoudar modification of Claim 13 does not explicitly teach a plurality of eductors having respective exit openings directed at respective locations of the at least one turbine. Osborne (Figures 1, 7) teaches a turbine having blades (10), wherein a plurality of eductors (venturi nozzles 16) having respective exit openings directed at respective locations of the at least one turbine (see Figures 1 and 7). A plurality of venturis add to the efficiency by impinging on the blades at the proper angle (Col. 3, Lines 40 – 45). Furthermore, a plurality of venturis would apply a uniform gas temperature profile to the turbine, thereby minimizing thermal stress. Given the teachings of Osborne, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Berhoudar by providing a plurality of venturis/eductors along the circumference of the turbine in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (US 2499772) in view of Tobber (US 4201049).
With regards to Claim 20:
Osborne does not explicitly disclose a sump located under a lowermost of the vertical turbine, the sump being configured to collect the liquid released from the exit opening of the at least one of the eductors which comprises the liquid entry opening; a liquid line redirecting at least some of the liquid from the sump back into liquid entry opening of the at least one of the eductors. Tobber (Figure 1) teaches a turbine (16) receiving a combination of gas and liquid from conduit (14), wherein the gas is a combustion gas generated in combustion chamber (8). A mixture of the gas and liquid impinge on the blades of the turbine (see Figure 1 and Col. 2, Lines 41 – 57). Tobber goes on to teach a sump (sump 33) located under the turbine, the sump being configured to collect the liquid released from the exit opening of the at least one of the nozzle (Col. 3, Lines 27 – 38); a liquid line (pipes 39, 42) redirecting at least some of the liquid from the sump back into liquid entry opening (ld). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, the addition of a sump to Osborne would yield the predictable result of catching any unevaporated liquid air and returning it to the jet pipe for further injection into the venturi nozzles, thereby improving the overall system efficiency.
Claims 25, 28, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benians (US 2004/0154306) in view of Toronto et al. (hereafter “Toronto” – US 2015/0059348).
With regards to Claim 25:
Benians does not explicitly disclose a control unit configured to control a timing sequence of operations of the at least one combustion chamber, but given that the timing sequence occurs, some form of controller is implicit. Nevertheless, Toronto (Figure 6, 7) teaches a similar gas turbine wherein a plurality of combustors are controlled individually to operate based on a sequence. Toronto teaches a control unit (controller 23) configured to control a timing sequence of operations of at least one combustion chamber (Paragraph 40). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, the use of a controller to control timing of combustors in a gas turbine is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Benians to control the timing via a controller in order to facilitate and automate the timing sequence.
With regards to Claim 28:
Benians discloses a plurality of ignitor units (Paragraph 56: “synchronized spark ignition”), wherein: each of the combustion chambers comprises a respective one of the ignitor units; at least some of the ignitor units are controlled to sequentially ignite respective sparks, to cause the combustion to occur sequentially in the at least some of the combustion chambers (see Paragraphs 10, 33, and 36 of Benians). Benians does not explicitly disclose a control unit configured to control a timing sequence of operations of the at least one combustion chamber, but given that the timing sequence occurs, some form of controller is implicit. Nevertheless, Toronto (Figure 6, 7) teaches a similar gas turbine wherein a plurality of combustors are controlled individually to operate based on a sequence. Toronto teaches a control unit (controller 23) configured to control a timing sequence of operations of at least one combustion chamber (Paragraph 40). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, the use of a controller to control timing of combustors in a gas turbine is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Benians to control the timing via a controller in order to facilitate and automate the timing sequence.
With regards to Claim 33:
The Benians modification of Claim 25 teaches the control unit is configured as a computerized unit having a processing utility, and a storage utility (Paragraph 40 of Toronto: “processor”, “RAM”); the storage utility is configured to store machine readable instructions configured to cause the processing utility to generate control signals configured to be received by the combustor apparatus to control an operation of the control apparatus (Paragraph 40 of Toronto).
With regards to Claim 35:
Benians discloses a gas turbine system (Figures 6 – 9), comprising:
a combustor apparatus (combustion stage 14) comprising a plurality of combustion chambers (chambers 1, 2, Figures 6 – 9), each of the combustion chambers being configured to receive compressed gas (via inlet valves) and combustion fuel (via fuel injection nozzles 42) separately from each other, to generate a respective combustion of the compressed gas, and to separately release the combusted gas (Paragraphs 30 – 53, see also Figure 7) toward a turbine (turbine 16) for rotating the turbine, wherein each of the combustion chambers is configured to have a plurality of discrete sequential combustion cycles (see Figure 7), each combustion cycle having an initial time interval in which the compressed gas and the combustion fuel are received (“charge” and “compound” intervals, see Figure 7), and a final time interval in which the combustion is performed and the combusted gas is released toward the turbine (“injection/transfer”, “exhaust”, and “scavenge” intervals, see Figure 7), the initial and final time interval being sequential to one another (see Figure 7 and Paragraphs 36 – 53, 61);
a plurality of ignitor units (Paragraph 56: “synchronized spark ignition”);
wherein the combustion chambers are configured to receive the gas and the fuel at successive time intervals such that the combustion occurs sequentially in at least some of the combustion chambers, and to sequentially release the combusted gas (see Paragraph 10 of Benians: “the combustion chambers are arranged as at least one series and in the, or each, series are operable sequentially”, see also Paragraphs 33, 36, 61, and 62 and Figures 6 and 7 of Benians). This sequencing “will ensure, for example, that the exhaust pulses will be constantly precessing in relation to the rotation, or multiples of revolutions, of the turbine blading, irrespective of the relative speeds or directions of shaft rotation, with a view to minimizing differential heat stresses” (Paragraph 36 of Benians);
wherein each of the combustion chambers comprises a respective one of the ignitor units;
wherein at least some of the ignitor units are controlled to sequentially ignite respective sparks, to cause the combustion to occur sequentially in the at least some of the combustion chambers (see Paragraphs 10, 33, and 36 of Benians).
Benians does not explicitly disclose a control unit configured to control a timing sequence of operations of the at plurality of combustion chambers and the ignitor units, but given that the timing sequence occurs, some form of controller is implicit. Nevertheless, Toronto (Figure 6, 7) teaches a similar gas turbine wherein a plurality of combustors are controlled individually to operate based on a sequence. Toronto teaches a control unit (controller 23) configured to control a timing sequence of operations of the plurality of combustion chambers (Paragraph 40). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, the use of a controller to control timing of combustors in a gas turbine is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Benians to control the timing via a controller in order to facilitate and automate the timing sequence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 4, 12, and 34 are objected to but would be allowable if rewritten to address the claim objections noted above.
Claims 5 and 8 – 11 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.
Claims 19, 21 – 23, and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 30 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.
Additional References
Please see attached PTO-892 form for additional references which are made of record but not relied upon for the current grounds of rejection.
deVries (US 4308241) – see Figure 1, motive fluid 11 flowing through a compressing nozzle and meeting a second fluid (14) upstream of a venturi.
Fukada (GB 2274110) – see Figure 4, motive fluid 22 flowing through compressing nozzle 36 and meeting a second fluid 18 upstream of a venturi 38.
Popov (US 6312230) – see Figure 3, motive fluid 1 flowing through a compressing nozzle and meeting a second fluid upstream of venturi 10.
Lott (US 8622715) – see Figure 8, motive fluid 114 flowing through compressor nozzle 104 and meeting a second fluid 112 upstream of a venturi 118.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Friday, January 9, 2026