DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed September 30, 2025 has been entered. Claims 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 have been amended. Claims 15, 17, 19, 21, 24 have been canceled. Claims 28 and 29 have been added. Currently, claims 21-34 are pending in the application.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/30/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 15-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 15-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, based on the claim amendments, please see the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 16, the first instance of the term “operatively” may be deleted.
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.
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 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase “claim 15” in line 1 as claim 15 has been cancelled by the Applicant. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “claim 14”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 25-29 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 25-29, Yong in view of Nicoli and Ye et al. (CN 111366750 A, hereinafter Ye) represents the best art of record. However, Yong in view of Nicoli and Ye fails to encompass all of the limitations of currently amended independent claims 14 and 22.
Regarding claims 14 and 22, the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that Yong in view of Nicoli fails to critically teach that the at least one-1 dimensional anemometer includes a single output signal generator and a received signal detector, wherein the received signal detector includes at least four piezo and/or electromagnetic receivers receive an output signal from the signal piezo and/or electromagnetic emitter; wherein the at least four piezo and/or electromagnetic receivers are spatially mounted to the wind vane along a single plane (see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 9/30/2025, pages 9-12).
Furthermore, Ye teaches a wind speed measuring device (see Abstract), which includes a single ultrasonic emitter and four ultrasonic receivers that lie in a plane (see Fig. 1 and 2, wind speed measuring device shown includes a single ultrasonic emitter 6 and four ultrasonic receivers 5 that lie in a plane as shown).
However, the device of Ye is designed as a stationary wind speed measuring device and thus it is the view of the Examiner that before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Ye with the teachings of Yong in view of Nicoli to arrive at the invention of claims 14 and 22.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claims 14 and 22 and the examiner can find no teachings for a hybrid stationary anemometer system or method of enhancing an anemometer system as particularly claimed, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 16 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855