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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Note, however, that the double-patenting rejections based on previously co-pending application 18/608,423 have been obviated in light of Applicant’s abandonment of the ‘423 application. Furthermore, amendments to the instant claims obviate the double-patenting rejection based on co-pending application 18/965,942.
Preliminary Formalities
Claims 6-8, 10-12, and 19-23 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5, 9, 13-18 are pending.
A thorough review of both the claims and the disclosure has been made. Pursuant to MPEP 707.07(j), and for the purposes of assisting Applicant and expediting prosecution, it is respectfully noted that there does not appear to be any patentable subject matter disclosed in the application as originally-filed. See attached Interview Summary for further discussion.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/13/2025. These drawings are not accepted.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner notes that the following may not be an exhaustive list of informalities. It is suggested that the applicant thoroughly review the drawings.
Regarding Figure 2A, the drawing is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h),(i) because the drawing is not in an upright position relative to the drawing sheet. Specifically, it appears Fig. 2 has been rotated slightly relative to the sheet so that element “110” is horizontal whereas, previously, elements “102” and “104” (indicating “pieces of road,” see ¶ 54 in the originally-filed specification) were horizontal relative to the frame of the drawing sheet (cf. originally-filed drawings of 03/17/2023).
Regarding all Figures, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“a substructure” of the “pivot structure” (claim 18);
“an excavation under a road” (claim 18);
“a longitudinal axis of the road” (claim 18);
“a rotating structure” to which a “crank” belongs (claim 18);
“an interface to spin the generator” (claim 18).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the disclosure as originally filed fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claim terms “at least one drive assembly” (claims 1, 14, and dependents thereon); “traffic drive system” (claim 14); “drive assembly” (claim 18). See rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for further discussion. Note, however, that no new matter may be added to the disclosure (see 35 U.S.C. §132(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1; and, relatedly, in claims 14, 18; the limitation “at least one drive assembly coupled to and extending from the bottom surface of the plate, the at least one drive assembly being configured such that movement of the plate between the first and second positions rotates at least one flywheel of the drive assembly, and rotation of the at least one flywheel drives at least one generator” (emphasis added) appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what a “drive assembly” may comprise or how such a “drive assembly” may be “configured such that […] rotation of the at least one flywheel drives at least one generator” as claimed. Initially, the specification does not provide antecedent basis for the term “drive assembly”. Insofar as the term “drive assembly” is used to refer to the “turbine assembly 240,” the disclosure still fails to provide adequate written description regarding how “rotation of the at least one flywheel”—e.g., “flywheel 248” which is coupled via “crank 246” to “driveshaft 242”—may “drive[]” the “generator 254”.
Looking at Fig. 8, which illustrates the elected embodiment, “flywheel 248” is shown as connected to “rotating shaft 250” and apparently imparts a driving force onto “driving rotating shaft 249”. However, between “driving rotating shaft 249” and “driven rotating shaft 251,” which is allegedly “driven” “driving rotating shaft 249,” there is a gap. That is, there appears to be no mechanical connection between the shafts 249 and 251.
The specification discusses this feature in, e.g., paragraph ¶ 68, stating “The rotating shaft 250 and flywheel 248 rotate the driving shaft 249, which in turn engages the adjacent driven shaft 251 for rotation. The driving shaft 249 and driven shaft 251 may disengage from each other to allow the driven shaft 251 to rotate freely and when the driven shaft 251 rotates fastener than the driving shaft 249” (emphasis added).
The specification alleges that the “driving shaft 249 […] engages the adjacent driven shaft 251 for rotation” but fails to indicate how this “engage[ment]” may occur. The specification also alleges that the “driving shaft 249 and driven shaft 251 may disengage from each other to allow the driven shaft 251 to rotate freely” but, again, it fails to indicate how the two shafts may “disengage from each other,” including what specific structure(s) would permit this functionality.
As there appears to be no mechanical connection between the shafts 249 and 251, it is unclear how the “generator 254” may actually be “drive[n]” as claimed.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a substructure disposed in an excavation” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what a “substructure disposed in an excavation” may comprise. The specification discusses this feature in, e.g., paragraph ¶ 58 but, though the feature is named, the specification explicitly indicates that the “substructure” is “not shown” and does not provide a written description of what the “substructure” may be or what structural component(s) it may comprise.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-5, 9, 13; and claims 15-17; they are dependent on claims 1, 14, respectively, and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 1-5, 9, 13-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 10-13, the limitation “at least one drive assembly coupled to and extending from the bottom surface of the plate, the at least one drive assembly being configured such that movement of the plate between the first and second positions rotates at least one flywheel of the drive assembly, and rotation of the at least one flywheel drives at least one generator” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what a “drive assembly” may be or comprise. Note that the specification does not clarify this issue as it fails to provide antecedent basis for this term. See MPEP 608.01(o), MPEP 2173.03.
Second, the limitation recites “at least one” of the “drive assembly”—i.e., it could encompass two or more “drive assembly” features. However, the claim fails to make clear how more than one “drive assembly” (whatever this may be) could be used by and/or incorporated with the claimed invention. As the disclosure does not appear to provide antecedent basis for even a single “drive assembly,” it clearly would not provide antecedent basis for a plurality of “drive assembl[ies]” and thus there would appear to be a scope of enablement issue as well.
Third, the claim fails to make clear how the “drive assembly” may be “configured” specifically “such that” the claimed functionality requiring “rotation of the at least one flywheel drives at least one generator” may be performed.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 2, line 3, the limitation “a bottom surface of the plate” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear whether the newly-recited “a bottom surface of the plate” may be the same as, or separate and distinct from, the “a bottom surface of the plate” set forth in claim 1, upon which claim 2 is dependent.
Regarding claim 2, lines 5-6 and line 7, the limitations “a lower end of the drive shaft” and “at least one horizontal rotating shaft” (emphasis added in both) are vague and indefinite. The terms “lower” and “horizontal” are relative terms which render the limitation indefinite. The claim fails to clearly set forth a point or plane of reference by which to define either of the terms “lower” and “horizontal”.
Regarding claim 2, line 7, the limitation “transverse to a direction of vehicle travel” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what “a direction of vehicle travel” may be or how it may relate to any of the previously-claimed features.
Regarding claim 14, lines 1-2, the limitation “A traffic drive system, comprising: a vehicle-actuated treadle system, comprising: […]” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what a “traffic drive system” may be or comprise, separate and distinct from the “vehicle-actuated treadle system”. The claim only defines the “traffic drive system” as comprising the “vehicle-actuated treadle system” without other element(s) or feature(s). None of the claims depending on claim 14 set forth additional element(s) or feature(s) either. Thus, it appears that claim 14 is simply drawn to a “vehicle-actuated treadle system” rather than to a separate/distinct “traffic drive system”.
Second, and relatedly, Applicant is advised that though more than one claim to the disclosed invention may be presented, this is true only provided they differ substantially from each other and are not unduly multiplied. See 37 CFR 1.75(b).
Regarding claim 14, lines 10-11, the limitation “at least one drive assembly coupled to and extending from the bottom surface of the plate” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what a “drive assembly” may be or comprise. Note that the specification does not clarify this issue as it fails to provide antecedent basis for this term. See MPEP 608.01(o), MPEP 2173.03.
Second, the limitation recites “at least one” of the “drive assembly”—i.e., the claim could encompass two or more “drive assembly” features. However, the claim fails to make clear how more than one “drive assembly” (whatever this may be) could be used by and/or incorporated with the claimed invention. As the disclosure does not appear to provide antecedent basis for even a single “drive assembly,” it clearly would not provide antecedent basis for a plurality of “drive assembl[ies]” and thus there would appear to be a scope of enablement issue as well.
Third, the claim fails to make clear how the “drive assembly” may be related to the other claim features, including what other element(s) it may be used to “drive” and what purpose it may serve in the claimed “traffic drive system”.
Regarding claim 14, lines 13-14, the limitation “an excavation below a road surface for receiving both the pivot assembly and the at least one drive assembly” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear whether the newly-recited “a road surface” may be the same as, or is separate and distinct from, the “adjacent road surface” previously recited at line 6.
Second, the claim fails to make clear which of the two features listed—the “excavation” and the “road surface”—is intended to be configured “for receiving both the pivot assembly and the at least one drive assembly”.
Regarding claim 15, lines 9-16, the limitation “a first rotating shaft […]; a driving rotating shaft adjacent to the first rotating shaft; a driven rotating shaft adjacent to the driving rotating shaft; a first flywheel rotatably coupled to the driving rotating shaft; a second flywheel rotatably coupled to the driven rotating shaft adjacent to the first flywheel; and a generator coupled to the driven rotating shaft” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear the structural and functional relationships between the “first rotating shaft,” the “driving rotating shaft” and the “driven rotating shaft” elements. The claim indicates that the “driven” and “driving” shaft elements are “adjacent to” each other but the claim fails to indicate how—or even if—they may, somehow, be connected either to each other or to the “first rotating shaft”.
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear how the “generator” may actually be driven by either the “driving rotating shaft” or the “driven rotating shaft”. The claim sets forth a “traffic drive system” solely comprising a “vehicle-actuated treadle system” but fails to make clear how a “vehicle” may actuate the “system” or, more specifically, how a “vehicle” may actuate the “generator”.
Regarding claim 16, lines 9-10, the limitation “a driven rotating shaft operably coupled to the second end of the crank such that rotation of the crank rotates the driven rotating shaft” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the “driven rotating shaft” may be “operably coupled” specifically “such that rotation of the crank rotates the driven rotating shaft” as claimed.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Note that, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) section above, the disclosure does not appear to provide adequate written description to resolve this issue.
Regarding claim 16, lines 11-12, the limitation “a freewheel flywheel rotatably mounted on the driven rotating shaft and configured to continue rotating when the plate moves from the second position back to the first position” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the “freewheel flywheel” may be “configured to continue rotating” specifically “when the plate moves from the second position back to the first position”.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 16, lines 13-14, the limitation “a generator coupled to the driven rotating shaft such that rotation of the freewheel flywheel drives the generator” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation appears to be self-contradictory. Specifically, the limitation requires the “generator” to be “coupled to the driven rotating shaft” but then requires that it be the “rotation of the freewheel flywheel” rather than rotation of the “driven rotating shaft” which “drives the generator”.
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear how the “generator” may be “coupled to the driven rotating shaft” specifically “such that rotation of the freewheel flywheel drives the generator”.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Note that, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) section above, the disclosure does not appear to provide adequate written description to resolve this issue.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations “the roadway” (line 22), “the lower end of the downshaft” (line 43), “the generator” (last line; note two separate “generator” features have been introduced in the claim) are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, line 3, the limitation “a pivot structure including a substructure disposed in an excavation” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what the “substructure” may be or comprise. Note that no “substructure” appears to be shown in the drawings of the elected embodiment and the specification explicitly states that the “substructure” is “not shown” (see, e.g., ¶ 58). Thus, it appears that Applicant, while perhaps contemplating a “substructure,” does not provide adequate written description of what such a “substructure” may comprise.
Regarding claim 18, line 44, the limitation “a crank of a rotating structure” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what the “rotating structure” may be or comprise. Note that no “rotating structure” appears to be shown (or identified) in the drawings.
Regarding claim 18, lines 48-49, the limitation “at least one horizontal rotating shaft supported by one or more substructures in response to engagement with the crank” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the phrase requiring a “shaft [to be] supported by one or more substructures in response to engagement with the crank” is not idiomatic and is, consequently, unclear. It appears to require that the “shaft” be “supported by one or more substructures” specifically when (i.e., “in response to”) the condition of “engagement with the crank” may be satisfied. Wouldn’t the “shaft” be “supported” by its supports all the time rather than only when the above condition is true?
Second, the claim fails to make clear what the newly-introduced “one or more substructures” may be or comprise. The claim also fails to make clear whether the “one or more substructures” may be the same as, or are separate and distinct from, the previously-recited “a substructure” introduced on line 3 of the claim.
Third, the term “horizontal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to clearly set forth a point or plane of reference by which to define the term “horizontal”.
Regarding claim 18, lines 56-57, the limitation “wherein the driving rotating shaft is operably coupled to transmit torque to the driven rotating shaft in a first rotational direction” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the “driving rotating shaft” may be “operably coupled” to the “driven rotating shaft” in order “to transmit torque” thereto, including what structure(s) may be required to allow the claimed functionality to be performed.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Note that, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) section above, the disclosure does not appear to provide adequate written description to resolve this issue.
Regarding claim 18, lines 57-58, the limitation “the driven rotating shaft is configured to rotate independently and faster than the driving rotating shaft” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the “driven rotating shaft” may be “configured” specifically to “rotate” both “independently and faster than the driving rotating shaft,” including what structure(s) may be required to allow the claimed functionality to be performed.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Note that, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) section above, the disclosure does not appear to provide adequate written description to resolve this issue.
Regarding claim 18, lines 58-61, the limitation “a second flywheel is mounted on the driven rotating shaft as a freewheel second flywheel configured to continue providing speed and torque faster than the driving rotating shaft and to keep rotating when the driving rotating shaft is stopped to drive rotation of a shaft that spins the generator” is vague and indefinite.
First, the phrase “a second flywheel is mounted on the driven rotating shaft as a freewheel second flywheel” (emphasis added) is not idiomatic and is, consequently, unclear. Is it the specific manner in which the “second flywheel” is “mounted” which causes it to act “as a freewheel second flywheel”? If so, the claim fails to make clear how the “flywheel” may be “mounted”. Relatedly, the claim fails to make clear what the phrase “as a freewheel second flywheel” is intended to mean.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what specific element is “configured to continue providing speed and torque faster than the driving rotating shaft […]”.
Third, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear how such an element (presumably, either the “second flywheel” or the “driven rotating shaft”) may be “configured” not only “to continue providing speed and torque faster than the driving rotating shaft” but also “to keep rotating when the driving rotating shaft is stopped to drive rotation of a shaft that spins the generator” as claimed.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Note that, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) section above, the disclosure does not appear to provide adequate written description to resolve this issue.
Regarding claim 18, lines 70-72, the limitation “an output shaft driven by the freewheel second flywheel and coupled to a generator to rotate an interface to spin the generator to generate electricity” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear whether the newly-introduced “a generator” may be the same as, or separate and distinct from, the previously-claimed “a coupled generator” set forth in the preamble.
Second, and relatedly, the limitation “the generator” is recited. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Third, the claim fails to make clear what “an interface” may be or comprise. The specification also fails to make clear what the “interface” may be or comprise.
Regarding claims 2-5, 9, 13; and claims 15-17; they are dependent on claims 1, 14, respectively, and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
For the purpose of expediting prosecution, prior art will be applied in reference to the claims as best understood by the examiner.
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 14, 17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughes et al. (US 2006/0147263 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Hughes discloses a traffic drive system, comprising:
a vehicle-actuated treadle system (counter weight or balance system 110; see Figs. 11-12), comprising:
a load-bearing pivoting treadle plate (plate 118) having a first end (see, e.g., Fig. 12: left end of plate 118, connected to counter balance 113) and a second end (right end of plate 118) and including a counterweight (counter balance 113) coupled to the first end of the plate, the pivoting treadle plate being configured to pivot between (i) a first position in which the second end of the plate is angled upward relative to an adjacent road surface (running track surface 110S), and (ii) a second position in which the plate is substantially level with the adjacent road surface (see Figs. 11-12), wherein the counterweight (counter balance 113) is acted on by gravity to return the plate from the second position to the first position;
a pivot assembly (including, e.g., bearings 116 and pillars 117 upon which plate 118 is pivotally mounted; see ¶ 85) rotatably coupled to a bottom surface of the plate (plate 118);
at least one drive assembly (e.g., energy collection system comprising cylinders 115) coupled to and extending from the bottom surface of the plate (see Figs. 11-12);
a first section of road (left-hand portion of track surface 110S) positioned adjacent to the first end of the plate (see Figs. 11-12);
an excavation below a road surface for receiving both the pivot assembly and the at least one drive assembly (see Fig. 12: excavation holds preformed frame 1182 which receives both 116/117 and 115); and
a second section of road (right-hand portion of track surface 110S) positioned adjacent to the second end of the plate (see Figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 17, Hughes further discloses that the pivot assembly comprises:
a base (e.g., pillars 117 and/or flat base, not separately numbered, between pillars 117 and frame 1182; see Fig. 12);
a shaft (long shaft, not separately numbered, between bearings 116) rotatably coupled to the base (see Fig. 11);
a pivoting member (e.g., bearings 116 which allow pivoting of plate 118) coupled to the shaft (see Fig. 11); and
at least one arm (e.g., flared flange, not separately numbered, connecting bearings 116 to plate 118) extending from the pivoting member and engaging the plate (see Figs. 11-12).
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 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 1-2, 4-5, 9, 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US 2006/0147263 A1, previously cited) in view of Jang (US 2012/0211996 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hughes discloses a gravity-actuated and vehicle-actuated treadle system for generating electric power (counter weight or balance system 110; see Figs. 11-12), comprising:
a plate (plate 118) having a first end (see, e.g., Fig. 12: left end of plate 118, connected to counter balance 113) and a second end (right end of plate 118) and including a counterweight (counter balance 113) coupled to the first end of the plate (plate 118), the plate (plate 118) being configured to pivot between (i) a first position in which the plate is angled upward relative to a surrounding road surface (running track surface 110S), and (ii) a second position in which the plate is substantially level with the surrounding road surface (see Figs. 11-12);
a pivot assembly (including, e.g., bearings 116 and pillars 117 upon which plate 118 is pivotally mounted; see ¶ 85) coupled between a bottom surface of the plate (see Fig. 12) and a substructure (e.g., preformed frame 1182) beneath the road surface (surface 110S) and configured to rotatably support the plate for movement between the first and second positions (see, e.g., Fig. 11); and
at least one drive assembly (e.g., energy collection system comprising cylinders 115) coupled to and extending from the bottom surface of the plate (see Figs. 11-12).
Furthermore, Hughes discusses the possibility of the at least one drive assembly being configured such that movement of the plate between the first and second positions rotates at least one flywheel of the drive assembly (see, e.g., ¶ 33: “the plate or plates may incorporate in the place of or in addition to the hydraulic or pneumatic system described above a single or series of fly wheels which may be so coupled to the plate or plates as to accelerate as a result of each vehicle passing over the plate or plates and deliver from the said fly wheel energy either to a suitable gear mechanism or to drive the previously described hydraulic or pneumatic systems or any such other convenient arrangement to utilise the energy collected via the plate or plates”).
However, Hughes does not appear to explicitly set forth the structure(s) which would connect such “single or series of fly wheels” to the “plate or plates” or to an electrical generator.
On the other hand, Jang (Figure 1) discloses a gravity-actuated and vehicle-actuated treadle system for generating electric power (electrical generator apparatus 100; see, e.g., Fig. 1), comprising:
a plate (rotatable lever portion 102) having a first end (first end 102a) and a second end (second end 102b), the plate being configured to pivot between (i) a first position in which the plate is angled upward relative to a surrounding road surface (see Fig. 1: first, upwardly-angled position shown in solid lines), and (ii) a second position in which the plate is substantially level with the surrounding road surface (see Fig. 1: second, level position shown in dashed lines);
a pivot assembly (including, e.g., support 116, pin 120) coupled between a bottom surface of the plate (lever portion 102) and the road surface and configured to rotatably support the plate (lever portion 102) for movement between the first and second positions (see Fig. 1); and, most notably:
at least one drive assembly coupled to and extending from the bottom surface of the plate (lever portion 102), the at least one drive assembly being configured such that movement of the plate (lever portion 102) between the first and second positions rotates at least one flywheel (flywheel 114) of the drive assembly, and rotation of the at least one flywheel (flywheel 114) drives at least one generator (electrical generator 140).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Hughes et al. with the explicit teaching of a drive assembly including a flywheel to drive a generator, as taught by Jang, where Hughes et al. appears silent regarding further details of such a flywheel-based drive assembly, and Jang teaches a suitable drive assembly including a flywheel to drive a generator, where the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP §2144.07). It would also have been obvious to modify the system of Hughes et al. with the drive assembly including a flywheel to drive a generator, as taught by Jang, for the purpose of helping to maintain continual rotation of the generator during periods when vehicles are not actuating the plate, thereby allowing the system to deliver electrical power on a more consistent basis (see, e.g., ¶ 73).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hughes and Jang further renders obvious that the at least one drive assembly may comprise:
a drive shaft (Jang: e.g., plunger block 118) coupled to a bottom surface of the plate (Jang: lever portion 102) proximate to the second end (Jang: second end 102b);
a crank (Jang: e.g., crank 108) having a first end (Jang: first end 108a) and a second end (Jang: second end 108b), the first end of the crank being coupled (Jang: via, e.g., plunger bar 104, leverage bar 106) to a lower end of the drive shaft (Jang: plunger block 118);
at least one horizontal rotating shaft (Jang: e.g., output shaft 138) supported by one or more substructures (Jang: e.g., support structure 136) beneath the plate and extending generally transverse to a direction of vehicle travel (Jang: see, e.g., Fig. 1: shaft 138 extends into the page whereas wheel WH of vehicle travels—as indicated by horizontal arrow adjacent the wheel WH—transversely thereto), the at least one horizontal rotating shaft (Jang: shaft 138) being operably coupled to the second end of the crank such that rotation of the crank rotates the at least one horizontal rotating shaft (Jang: see, e.g., Fig. 1); and
the at least one flywheel (Jang: flywheel 114) mounted on the at least one horizontal rotating shaft (Jang: shaft 138; see, e.g., Fig. 1 and lower portion of Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hughes and Jang further renders obvious that the at least one flywheel comprises:
a first flywheel (Jang: first flywheel 114) mounted on a first rotating shaft (Jang: first shaft 138) coupled to the second end of the crank (Jang: crank 108); and
a second flywheel (Jang: second flywheel 114) mounted on a second rotating shaft (Jang: second shaft 138) adjacent to the first rotating shaft (Jang: see, e.g., Figs. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hughes and Jang further renders obvious that the at least one drive assembly further comprises:
a rotating shaft (Jang: e.g., output shaft 138) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the rotating shaft is coupled to the second end of the crank (Jang: crank 108) and the first flywheel (Jang: first flywheel 114) is mounted on the rotating shaft (Jang: shaft 138).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hughes and Jang further renders obvious that the at least one drive assembly comprises:
a Pitman arm (Jang: e.g., leverage bar 106) having a first end (Jang: first end 106a) and a second end (Jang: second end 106b), the first end (Jang: first end 106a) of the Pitman arm (Jang: bar 106) being coupled to the drive shaft (Jang: plunger block 118); and
wherein the crank (Jang: crank 108) has the first end (Jang: first end 108a) coupled to the second end (Jang: second end 106b) of the Pitman arm (Jang: bar 106) and the second end (Jang: second end 108b) of the crank (Jang: crank 108) is operably coupled to rotate the at least one flywheel (Jang: flywheel 114).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hughes and Jang further renders obvious that the pivot assembly comprises:
a base (Jang: e.g., U-shaped support structure 156);
a shaft (Jang: e.g., pin, no separate number provided, which permits rotation of tube spring 154; see Fig. 1) rotatably coupled to the base (Jang: structure 156);
a pivoting member coupled to the shaft (Jang: e.g., base of tube spring 154); and
at least one arm (Jang: e.g., top arm of tube spring 154) extending from the pivoting member (Jang: see, e.g., Fig. 1) and engaging the plate (Jang: lever portion 102).
Claim 3, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US 2006/0147263 A1) in view of Jang (US 2012/0211996 A1) and further in view of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hughes and Jang further renders obvious that the at least one flywheel comprises a first flywheel (Jang: flywheel 114).
However, whereas Jang discloses a mechanism (Jang: i.e., first and second wheels 110, 112 connected via coupling element 134) between the crank and the first flywheel for increasing angular velocity (Jang: see, e.g., ¶ 73)—i.e., the crank and the first flywheel are indirectly connected, Jang appears to be silent that the crank (Jang: crank 108) may be coupled directly to the first flywheel (Jang: flywheel 114).
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to directly couple the crank to the first flywheel (i.e., without the wheel arrangement to increase angular velocity), for the purpose of simplifying the power transmission mechanism and thereby reducing cost of production.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Applicant should, in response to this Office Action, provide support for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. See MPEP 2163(II)(A). That is, Applicant should specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
March 19, 2026
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834