In order do make a final office action allowable, I need to amend independent claim 1 which broadly claims a rotating device specific to the art which would cover most potential infringements. The single limitation for allowance; claims a sleeve and bolt with a non-Newtonian oil lubricant between them which creates a drag that controls the rotational speed of the rotating device. My questions is, would this be consider equivalent in view of the "doctrine of equivalents" for infringement in the US for an electric motor, which would also control the rotational speed of the rotating device? I most likely would not be able to amend claim 1 with "rotational control" limitation only.
Under patent infringement doctrine, there can be infringement under doctrine of equivalents or under means plus function language. The latter is invoked when the claim includes functional language. Functional language is language in the claim that does not describe claim elements nor connects them. In your claim 1, the language “which creates a drag . . .” Is functional. This gives rise to likely means plus function equivalents not doctrine of equivalents. The doctrine of equivalents is broader protection, as means plus function equivalents just give rise to a narrower range of equivalents to what is defined in your spec. So you would need to read infringement upon a narrower equivalence doctrine.
If the aspect of your invention that gives it novelty and non-obviousness over prior art references is not core to its functionally then you are likely to end up with a patent that is easy to design around.
To get a more valuable patent you would need to show how the core functionality has aspects that are not in the prior art.
In the prosecution of some of my patents, examiners would simply reject things citing a patent that is hardly related. Basically this is laziness asking the applicant to educate the examiner. In US5142404A the invention has nothing to do with your application and is deflecting a laser beam for printing, not reflecting sunlight for the purpose of deterring bird strikes. US6053409A similarly is a different application altogether as it is for optical imaging. Inventions are allowed to use an existing device in a new application. In my mind US4466698A is the most relevant and you should put most your effort figuring out how to differentiate your invention to that patent.
As I've said, I'm not a patent attorney. An attorney would know how to communicate differences from prior art to the examiner. This is the main reason I always suggest working with an attorney or agent when pursuing a patent.