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 .
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.
Claims 1 – 21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 18, the statement “in a pre-assembly process to form a sleeve and turbine assembly” is indefinite since it is not clear if the process involves sliding over the assembly along the post or if the process involves making the sleeve and turbine assembly only.
The phrase “configured to be slid over” is indefinite since it is not clear if the statement “configured” is related to the pre-assembly process or it is a different procedure.
Claims 2 – 17, 19 – 21 are rejected due to their dependency on claims, 1, 18.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9, 13 – 18, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson (WO 2020/157219) in view of Patel et al (2014/0252770) OR Jessie et al (US 2010/0013238).
Sanderson discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A wind turbine for attachment to an upstanding post, the turbine comprising a two-piece mounting bracket 8, 10; a cylindrical sleeve coupled to the mounting bracket (see Fig. 4b); a turbine blade 6 apparatus rotationally coupled to the sleeve, wherein the axis of the sleeve defines the rotational axis of the turbine blade apparatus, the turbine blade apparatus comprising a lower blade support plate 34; an upper blade support plate 30; and two or more turbine blades located between the upper and lower blade supports (see Fig. 3), wherein a first end of each blade is coupled to the lower blade support and a second end of each blade is coupled to the upper blade support (see Fig. 3); and an electrical energy generator which is coupled to and driven by the turbine blade apparatus (page 1, lines 20 – 25), wherein the electrical energy generator generates electrical energy when the turbine blade apparatus rotates relative to the sleeve.
It is noted that the process of attaching a device is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform a well-known function. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
The recitation that an element can be slid over a post is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. Again, it does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense.
The issue to be solve appears to use a common practice of moving an object (e.g., move a sleeve) along another device (e.g., a post or tube). Such procedure is well-known in the present field and in other many trades.
In that respect Patel et al teaches a wind turbine for attachment to a post having a two-piece mounting bracket (see Fig. 4) and in a pre-assembly process to form a sleeve and turbine assembly (since the device is retrofitted into a pre-existing system; 0009, 0037), the sleeve and turbine assembly configured to be slid over the upstanding post (since the device is attached and adjusted at various locations about the length of the mast; 0038, 0044; 0045; 0049) and coupled to the two-piece mounting bracket (see Figs. 1, 3).
It is noted that Jessi et al also teaches, having a wind turbine being attached to a post in which the turbine apparatus is coupled to the sleeve (see Figs. 1, 3) and the turbine apparatus is coupled to the sleeve (Fig. 3) in a pre-assembly process to form a sleeve and turbine assembly (since the turbine apparatus is made at a different time and attached to existing infrastructure; 0007), the sleeve and turbine assembly configured to be slid over the upstanding post (since the device is slide down to a desired location along the post; see paragraphs 0023) and coupled to the two-piece mounting bracket (see Figs. 1, 3).
Sanderson further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the lower blade support plate is rotationally coupled to a first portion of the sleeve; the upper blade support plate is rotationally coupled to a second portion of the sleeve; and the second portion of the sleeve is spaced upwardly from the first portion of the sleeve (see Fig. 3).
Claim 3, the lower blade support plate includes a first bearing arrangement, and the upper blade support plate includes a second bearing arrangement, wherein the lower blade support plate and the upper blade support plate are each rotationally coupled to the sleeve via the respective bearing arrangements (page 2, lines 12 – 19).
Claim 4, each bearing arrangement includes a rolling-element bearing (page 2, lines 12 – 19).
Claim 5, each blade includes an inner blade edge that is parallel to rotational axis and radially spaced from rotational axis by a first distance; and an outer blade edge that is parallel to rotational axis and radially spaced from rotational axis by a second distance, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (see Fig. 3).
Claim 6, an axis defined between the inner blade edge and the outer blade edge is angled with respect to a radius from the rotational axis which includes the inner blade edge (page 4, lines 1 – 13).
Claim 7, each turbine blade is substantially planar (see Fig. 3).
Claim 8, each turbine blade is curved from its inner blade edge to its outer blade edge (page 4, lines 15 – 19).
Claim 9, the radius of curvature decreases from the inner blade edge to the outer blade edge (page 4, lines 15 – 19).
Claim 13, the turbine blade apparatus includes a drive gear, the electrical energy generator includes a driven gear coupled to a rotor and the drive gear is operatively coupled to the driven gear whereby rotation of the drive gear causes a corresponding rotation of the driven gear (see Fig. 5).
Claim 14, the wind turbine includes a gearbox located between the turbine blade apparatus drive gear and the electrical energy generator driven gear (page 4, lines 27 – 30).
Claim 15, the electrical generator includes an electrical output connected to an electrical energy storage assembly 12.
Claim 16, the electrical energy storage assembly comprises one or more rechargeable batteries (page 5, lines 5, 6).
Claim 17, the electrical generator includes a second electrical output which is connected to a powered device (see Fig. 1; page 8, lines 11, 12).
Claim 18, An item of street furniture comprising; an upstanding post, and a wind turbine; wherein the wind turbine a two-piece mounting bracket; a cylindrical sleeve coupled to the mounting bracket; a turbine blade apparatus rotationally coupled to the sleeve in a pre-assembly process to form a sleeve and turbine assembly, the sleeve and turbine assembly configured to be slid over the upstanding post and coupled to the two-piece mounting bracket; wherein the axis of the sleeve defines the rotational axis of the turbine blade apparatus, the turbine blade apparatus comprising; a lower blade support plate; an upper blade support plate; and two or more turbine blades located between the upper and lower blade supports, wherein a first end of each blade is coupled to the lower blade support and a second end of each blade is coupled to the upper blade support; and an electrical energy generator which is coupled to and driven by the turbine blade apparatus, wherein the electrical energy generator generates electrical energy when the turbine blade apparatus rotates relative to the sleeve; and wherein the mounting bracket is secured to the post and the sleeve is arranged coaxially with a longitudinal axis defined by the post (see rejection for claim 1; Fig. 3).
Claim 20, An item of street furniture wherein an outwardly facing surface of the post has a geometric shape; the mounting bracket includes an inner spacer located between the post and the mounting bracket; the internal shape of the spacer corresponds to the geometric shape of the outwardly facing surface of the post; and the outwardly facing surface of the spacer is cylindrical (see Fig. 1; page 2, lines 30 – 35).
Claim 21, An array of items of street furniture, wherein the array includes two or more items of street furniture, the array includes a common electrical energy storage assembly and each of the electrical energy generators includes an electrical output which is connected to the common electrical energy storage assembly (page 6, lines 14 – 21).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose the combined turbine as disclose by Sanderson and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Patel et al for the purpose of decreasing the manufacturing cost related to wind turbines OR Jessie et al for the purpose of improving the operation of wind turbines.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson and Patel et al or Jessie et al and further in view of Ignatiev et al (US 2011/0006540).
Sanderson discloses all of the elements above. It is well within someone skill in the art to power a device (e.g., a lamp post or battery).
In that respect, Ignatiev et al is being cited for explicitly showing, regarding,
Claim 19, the post carries a powered device and the powered device is electrically connected to an output from the electrical energy generator (see Fig. 2C; paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose the combined turbine/furniture as disclose above and to show explicitly powering a device for the purpose of providing a robust high output turbine that can take advantage of artificial wind and ambient natural wind as shown by Ignatiev et al.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson and Patel et al or Jessie et al and further in view of Ahmadi (US 2011/0089698).
Sanderson discloses all of the elements above. Sanderson discloses an upper and lower cover.
Ahmadi is being cited for explicitly showing, regarding,
Claim 10, the wind turbine further includes an upper cover, wherein the upper cover is coupled to the sleeve at a position above the upper blade support plate (see Figs. 1, 4A, 5, 2, 2A).
Claim 11, the wind turbine further includes a lower cover, wherein the lower cover is coupled to the sleeve at a position below the lower blade support plate (see Figs. 1, 4A, 5, 2, 2A).
Claim 12, the electrical energy generator is carried by the upper cover or the lower cover (see Figs. 1, 4A, 5, 2, 2A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose the combined turbine/furniture as disclose by Sanderson/above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Ahmadi for the purpose of mitigate negative forces and stressed on a wind power system.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson and Patel et al or Jessie et al and further in view of Yokoi (US 2007/0231139).
Sanderson discloses all of the elements above. Sanderson discloses an upper and lower cover.
Yokoi is being cited for explicitly showing, regarding,
Claim 10, the wind turbine further includes an upper cover, wherein the upper cover is coupled to the sleeve at a position above the upper blade support plate (see Figs. 1, 2).
Claim 11, the wind turbine further includes a lower cover, wherein the lower cover is coupled to the sleeve at a position below the lower blade support plate (see Figs. 1, 2).
Claim 12, the electrical energy generator is carried by the upper cover or the lower cover (see Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose the combined turbine/furniture as disclose by Sanderson/above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Yokoi for the purpose of reduce unwanted vibrations in a wind power system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 21 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the process of attaching a device is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform a well-known function. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
The recitation that an element can be slid over a post is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. Again, a process or process of building (moving a sleeve along a post) does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense.
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that "apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art." MPEP 2114. In re Danly, 263 F. 2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959) it was held that apparatus claims must be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In Hewlett-Packard Co v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held that: "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what it does." (emphases in original). To emphasize the point further, the court added: "An invention need not operate differently than the prior art to be patentable, but need only be different" (emphases in original).
A process limitation or procedure (moving a sleeve along a post) in an apparatus claim has no patentable weight.
That is, in an apparatus claim, if a prior art structure discloses all of the structural elements in the claim, as well as their relative juxtaposition, then it reads on the claim, regardless of whether or not the function for which the prior art structure was intended is the same as that of the claimed invention.
Moreover, it is remined that sliding over a device (sleeve or a turbine or any other device) is a well-known procedure that is done on a daily basis by many tradesmen in many different fields. For example, plumbers move support collar sleeves along pipes as needed, every day. Electricians moves cable attachments all the time along a high voltage cable as needed. The same goes for house builders, HVAC installers, etc.
There is absolutely nothing novel about moving (sliding over) a sleeve along a post.
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 Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached on 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights