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 .
This action is in response to the RCE filing of 11/13/2025.
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
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: - spanning rods of claim 1 - “defined constructions” of claim 5 - “spanning cords or rods, reinforcing bands or edges, winding spindles or drums or shafts, wheels or eyelets or grooves, or combinations thereof” of claim 6 -- gear devices, brakes, clutches, yaw drives, transmissions, thermal management systems, tail structures, torque convertors, joints, dampers counterweights, foundations, pumps, valves, vanes, lifts, conveyors, potential energy devices, and combinations thereof of claim 12 - Electrocomponents and combinations listed in claim 13 - spanning rods interconnected with a connecting membrane of claims 14 and 16
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the structures enumerated above with respect to claimed language as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: see pages 10-11, for example, which are replete with grammatical errors and terminology that does nothing to provide any guidance to the reader as to what structures Applicant is addressing in the disclosure. The entire Specification is like and is a sea of technical jargon and terms that lack any clear association with whatever it is that Applicant is trying to claim.
The use of the many different terms within the specification, which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has completely amended original claim 14, labeled it as new, and added new claims labeled as renumbered. This is improper.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
In the interest of most simply advancing prosecution for Applicant, claims presented in the RCE filing of 11/13/2025 will be addressed in the order and numbering in which they are presented in that filing, albeit improper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 14 and 16 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 claims 14 and 16, each of these claims recite “wherein the first and second spanning rods are interconnected with a connecting membrane disposed between the first spanning rod and the second spanning rod.”
First, based on the two basic figures filed and specification, it is not readily clear what exactly constitutes a “spanning rod”. Amended drawings and the amendment to Specification filed 6/6/2025 are acknowledged, however these amendments fail to clearly demonstrate what exactly it is that Applicant is attempting to claim. The specification recites “spanning parts”, and points to the figures, specifically parts 106aa, 106ba, 106ca, 106da, and further second spanning parts 106ab, 106bb, 106dc, 106db. The figures show no more than a basic wind turbine structure and those specific reference characters just point to non-descript regions of a wind turbine blade. The figures have been attached below for easy reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
360
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Based on the limited disclosure and rudimentary drawings, it is impossible to determine what exactly constitutes a “spanning rod”. Is it a rotor blade itself? Is it a structure attached the skin of a rotor blade? Is it an internal structural member like an I-beam within an airfoil shaped body? It is further noted that “spanning rod” is not an art recognized term. Given the totality of evidence, one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the scope of protection sought by Applicant based upon the disclosure as filed.
Confusion is further elevated by the specific language introduced into claim 1 with the filing of the RCE of 11/13/2025. In that filing, claim 1 is amended to recite that the two rotors “can rotate independently.” How, if the separate rotors required of claims 14 and 16 are physically attached to one another, could they possibly rotate independently (required of claim 1)? Two objects physically attached to one another are not able rotate independently. Nothing in the specification remedies this question. Pages 10-11 of the specification (where “wound up membranes” are mentioned) provide an extensive list of broad terms related to structures, but provide no actual concrete guidance or disclosure of what exactly the structures that Applicant seeks protection for are. One of ordinary skill in the art is unable to determine what the structure claimed by Applicant actually is, and thus fail to comply with the requirements of 112(a).
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Speaking specifically to claims 1 and 15, it is not readily apparent from the disclosure what exactly “spanning rods” are. Applicant has presented a specification with an extensive list of various structural features but has not explained with any specificity what those structures actually are. The only figures provided are simple rudimentary drawings of a wind turbine that lack any degree of detail so as to convey to one of ordinary skill what it is that Applicant is claiming. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, each of these claims recite “wherein the first and second spanning rods are interconnected with a connecting membrane disposed between the first spanning rod and the second spanning rod.” As best understood, these claims require that the two rotors established in claim 1 are physically interconnected. However, claim 1 requires that the rotors be able to rotate independently. The structural requirements of these claims are in physical contradiction to one another and thus create indefiniteness. The indefiniteness is further amplified by a lack of clear disclosure as to what a spanning rod in this context actually is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brueckner in US Patent Application Publication 2006/0093483 (hereinafter “Brueckner”).
Regarding claim 1, in so much as it can be understood, Brueckner discloses a wind turbine, comprising: at least two blade rotors (Fig. 1, 3, 5, and 7 show a turbine with four rotors, each rotating about a spinner or hub 13); a nacelle (structure atop tower 11; Fig. 7 or 10), wherein said at least two blade rotors are coaxially rotatably mounted to said nacelle (Fig. 7); a tower 11, wherein said nacelle is mounted to said tower and said tower is provided above a level, wherein said at least two blade rotors include one or more retractable blades (Fig. 1, 3, 5, and 7 show a progression of blade segments telescopically nesting), wherein each retractable blade comprises: a first spanning rod in one of the at least two blade rotors; and a second spanning rod in the other of the at least two blade rotors (see Fig. 21A, 21B, and 22 that show a cross-section of a blade; the equivalent “spanning rod” of Brueckner is the shaft that telescopically extends and holds blade sections 1, 2, 3, etc.; each blade has one of these structures; thus, a first rotor with a first set of blades has at least a first spanning rod, and another rotor has a second spanning rod); wherein said one or more retractable blades are configured to be able to change a total area exposed to the wind and wherein said two blade rotors are one behind the other on one axis and can rotate independently (Fig. 1; abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein the at least one said retractable blade has a variable property, wherein said variable property is at least one from a group consisting of variable pitches, variable spans, variable blade areas, downwind modes, upwind modes, or combinations thereof (the blades are telescopic; thus - they have variable spans, variable areas, variable “modes”; notably, the blades are also pitch adjustable per the abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein at least one said retractable blade is stowable (as the blades are telescopic, they may be said to be “stowable”).
Regarding claim 4, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein at least one said retractable blade is able to weathervane (the blades are pitch adjustable; a configuration to minimize shaft torque is also known as “feathering”; see paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 5, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein at least one said retractable blade has a defined construction, wherein at least one said defined construction is selected from a group consisting of sandwiched constructions, constructions with hollow spaces, prestressed constructions, constructions composed of subsections, dismantleable constructions, modular constructions, or combinations thereof (the blade structure of Brueckner may be said to be all of these).
Regarding claim 6, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein at least one said retractable blade comprises spanning cords or rods, or reinforcing bands or edges, or winding spindles or drums or shafts, or guiding wheels or eyelets or grooves, or combinations thereof (the telescopic shafts in each blade may be said to be “spanning rods” as they are rods that extend the spans of the blades).
Regarding claim 7, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein said nacelle is rotatably mounted to said tower (abstract; “a wing with two pods is pivotally mounted on a tower.”; emphasis added by examiner).
Regarding claim 8, the device of Brueckner is capable of being mounted in water and thus anticipates claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein said at least two blade rotors are configured to be able to rotate in the same and/or opposite directions (paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 10, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein at least one component is fabricated of a material, wherein at least one said material is selected from a group consisting of metals, metal alloys, superalloys, polymers, carbon materials, polyester materials, epoxy materials, ceramic, glass, fiber materials, wood materials, wood compounds, nanomaterials, binders, heat resistant materials, water resistant materials, solvent resistant materials, chemically resistant materials, layered materials, radiation resistant materials, painted materials, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0101] discloses a seal that keeps out moisture and may be considered a “water resistant material”).
Regarding claim 11, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, provided in an array (see Fig. 1, which may be considered to show an array of rotors).
Regarding claim 12, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein said wind turbine is couplable or coupled with a mechanocomponent, wherein at least one said mechanocomponent is selected from a group consisting of gear devices, brakes, clutches, yaw drives, transmissions means, thermal management systems, tail structures, torque converters, joints, dampers, counterweights, foundations, pumps, valves, vanes, lifts, conveyers, potential energy devices, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0101] discloses gear devices).
Regarding claim 13, Brueckner discloses the wind turbine according to claim 1, wherein said wind turbine is couplable or coupled with an electrocomponent, wherein at least one said electrocomponent is selected from the group consisting of anemometers, sensors, targets, actuators, amplifiers, resonators, rectifiers, filters, inverters, converters, transformers, voltage regulators, power factor corrections, compensations, power electronics, chargers, controllers, processors, inductors, capacitors, resistors, diodes, varactors, switches, conductors, rechargeable batteries, rechargeable power sources, source management systems, loads, power transfer interfaces, power cables, input devices, electricity generators, electric motors, arrays of solar cells, hydrogen power units providing fuel cells, wind energy to electric energy converters, wave energy to electric energy converters, tidal energy to electric energy converters, water currents energy to electric energy converters, thermal energy to electric energy converters, or combinations thereof (see Fig. 7 and paragraph [0082]; element 15 is a weather station or sensor array).
Regarding claim 15, operation of the wind turbine of Brueckner as applied above against claim 1 meets all of the method steps of claim 15. Paragraphs [0082]-[0090] describe how a computer controls operation by continuously (or repeatedly) monitoring data from the on-board mounted weather station to control blade extension and pitch.Examiners note regarding claims 14 and 16: The Examiner is unable to make an assessment of the validity of an art-based rejection or allowability of claims 14 and 16 at this time due to the physically non-sensical nature of what is claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2011/0304153 discloses a multi-rotor wind turbine with various support structures extending from a hub at a rotation axis to support the fluid reactive surfaces of the turbine.
DE202015006036 discloses a multi-rotor wind turbine with co-rotating blade rotors interconnected with “rods”.
WO03046376 discloses a multi-rotor wind turbine with retractable blades.
US2012/0217757 discloses a multi-rotor wind turbine with structural members interconnecting two axially aligned and adjacent rotor sections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799