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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claims 13, 17, 19, and 26-29 in an attempt to obviate the improper dependencies. However, these fixes come with their own issues:
Claim 13 now includes “the at least one further passage”, but there is a lack of antecedent basis for this claim limitation because it depends upon claim 5 which doesn’t recite the limitation. Additionally, this introduces new improper claim dependencies since features cannot be combined in this way.
Claims 17 and 19 now includes a device and a feature from another claim; this introduces new improper claim dependencies since features cannot be combined in this way.
Claims 27-29 now have various indefinite issues since they are dependent upon claim 14.
Applicant argues that the disk/disc of Bernsau rotates and therefore cannot be part of a “non-rotatable formed disk”. This argument is not persuasive. First, this argument is not persuasive because a later dependent claim recites that the non-rotating formed disk has a “rotatable disk” itself. Because of how the claims are constructed throughout, the recited disk was considered to be an equivalent thereof by broadest reasonable interpretation. The claims do not sufficiently separate the differences in structure with regard to the “non-rotatable formed disk” that also includes a rotatable disk. Second, because there are disk/annular portions within the figures that are part of the overall structure at the region of the passages which are attached to the engine frame (10), there are then portions in this region which are “disks” (as they are flat and annular; see for example tube 100 and disk 92) and “non-rotatable” (since they attach to the frame 10). The claims do not sufficiently define what is required and differentiated for the overall structure.
Applicant argues Bernsau fails to teach the ability of the passages to accelerate/decelerate the rotatable parts of the device for generating additional negative pressure. This argument is not persuasive. The claims do not differentiate with what rotatable part is or is not affected by the negative pressure as a result of the limitations. In this instance, the pressure differential is achieved with the converter wheel structure which achieves the increased/decreased rotatable parts (turbine) of the “device” (see Paragraphs 44 and 53).
Applicant argues Bernsau fails to teach the at least one medium supply line. This argument is not persuasive. Because the claims as recited do not differentiate with sufficient structure, Bernsau teaches multiple structure that can be interpreted as the medium supply line: either the passages defined by the guide vanes within inlet corpus, or the unit (101) disposed within the corpus. Both of which accomplish the same functional result (Paragraphs 44-45).
Applicant argues that the claim limitation “formed disk” limits the disk to being 3-dimensional as opposed to the circular/2-dimensional disk of Bernsau. This argument is not persuasive. A “formed” disk is no different than the previously recited disks above (see above arguments). Nothing separates it except for the utilization of “formed”, which has merely been interpreted as “existing”.
Applicant argues Bernsau fails to teach the turbine and device for generating additional pressure are able to be decoupled. This argument is not persuasive. As stated in the office action, without any structural requirement for how this decoupling occurs, because the components can be separately attached to the device, the turbine and device for generating additional pressure can be decoupled. Because the motor drives the additional pressure device and the turbine is rotated by the passage of the fluid medium, the medium can flow against them in a mutually independent manner.
Applicant argues that the regulating flap of Ghosh is not designed to regulate the flow of incoming medium since it’s an exhaust valve. This argument is not persuasive. The regulating flap is placed at the inlet area of the turbine (inlet cone 26) and therefore even though it provides relief it is provided at the inlet and regulates the mass of inflowing medium.
Moreover, the Examiner cited Wolfram (US 4781522) in the prior office action as pertinent prior art which teaches the same invention: a device (Figure 3) for converting flow energy transported via a medium into mechanical and/or electrical energy, comprising a casing (1) which has a turbine wheel (8) and a device for generating additional negative pressure (6, 20, 21), which is disposed downstream of said turbine wheel (Figure 3) in the flow direction and contains an inner inlet duct (29’) and ducts (21) which receive the medium, wherein the latter is forced outward during rotation of the rotatable parts of the device for generating additional negative pressure (the terteriary duct lwoers overall pressure thereby providing “additional negative pressure”), characterized in that the device for generating additional negative pressure has a non-rotatable formed disk (6) which has at least one further passage (passage leading to the tertiary shroud 21) which is suitable for either accelerating or decelerating the rotatable parts of the device for generating additional negative pressure (multiple structure changes the pressure and thereby the speed of the main upstream turbine). As such, other art exists that teaches and discloses the invention. Note, this art is not relied upon for rejection, but as demonstration of other art that exists.
The rejections are maintained.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13, 17, 19, and 27-29 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least one further passage" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the media supply line”. However, this limitation is recited in claim 16 upon which claim 17 depends, and additionally “the media supply line” is now according to claim 6 which is a separate media supply line. The claim is then indefinite because it’s not clear which limitations it depends.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the further passage”. However, this limitation is recited in claim 18 upon which claim 19 depends, and additionally “the further passage” is now according to claim 2 which is a separate structure. The claim is then indefinite because it’s not clear which limitations it depends.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the incident flow angle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitations “the at least one media supply line” (line 2), "the inflow duct of the inlet corpus" in lines 2-3, and “the regulating flap” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitations “the at least one media supply line” in line 2, "the inflow duct of the inlet corpus" in lines 2-3, and “the regulating flap” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 13, 17, and 19 are directed to a device, but then each of the claims bring in a limitation under another category within the claims themselves such as “at least one further passage”, “the media supply line”, and “the further passage”; this combines two categories of claims and is not proper. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Note: art has not been applied to claims 13, 17, or 19 because they all are indefinite with respect to the further recited limitations as they are “designed” according to limitations of other claims which do not exist. As such, art cannot be applied since it is not clear what the “design” is. Additionally, for similar reasons, art is not applied to claims 28-29 as there are an assorted number of recited limitations of which there is no antecedent basis and the claimed invention cannot be constructed according to the art in the context of the claims as written.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 23-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bernsau (US 20130183139).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 14, 16, 23-25, and 27, Bernsau discloses a device (Figure 2) for converting flow energy transported via a medium into mechanical and/or electrical energy, comprising a casing (see Figure 2 the casing/enclosure) which has a turbine wheel (80) and a device for generating additional negative pressure (50), which is disposed downstream of said turbine wheel (80) in the flow direction and contains an inner inlet duct (41) and ducts (48) which receive the medium, wherein the latter is forced outward during rotation of the rotatable parts of the device for generating additional negative pressure (50), characterized in that the device for generating additional negative pressure (50) has a non-rotatable formed disk (Figure 4a) which has at least one further passage (Figures 4a-4b) which is suitable for either accelerating or decelerating the rotatable parts of the device for generating additional negative pressure (50). The casing comprises an inlet corpus (113) in which is disposed at least one media supply line (see the passage along 113) which is designed to direct the medium to the device for generating additional negative pressure in the rotating/counter-rotating direction. The device is pivotable into or out of the flow direction in such a manner that the projected inflow area is able to be regulated (Paragraph 44). The regulating device is actuated and the inflow area is increased/decreased as the device is pivoted into/out of the flowing medium, and the pivoting of the device is performed about a vertical axis (moved away/into the wind) and the pivoting angle is performed “permanently” (such that the device is permanently into the wind); such changes in direction places a function of the respective rotating speed of the device based on the incident flow angle.
Regarding claims 2-4, 11-12, 15, 18, Bernsau discloses the device according to claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 above. Bernsau further discloses that the at least one further passage in the non-rotating formed disk has a design embodiment which deflects the medium in or counter to the rotating direction of the device for generating additional negative pressure (see the deflection of the fluid along the passages/”further passages” in Figures 4a-4b), the non-rotating formed disk has a rotatable disk (Figures 4a-4b) as an aperture which is pivotable in one of the two pivoting directions about a centric axis (see different directions of axes and rotations in Figure 4a), and releases the at least one further passage for the accelerating or for the decelerating rotation of the rotatable parts of the device for generating additional negative pressure (Paragraphs 33-41). The at least one further passage is designed as at least one ring duct (see either at the center of the disk in Figure 4a as a “ring” duct, or interpreted as the radially outer circumferential rim area of the passage(s)) which ensures the acceleration of the rotating speed of the device for generating additional negative pressure and the inflow/outflow opening runs in the rotating direction (Figure 4a).
Regarding claim 20, Bernsau discloses the device according to claims 1, 5, and 14 above. Bernsau further discloses the device for generating negative pressure and the turbine wheel are able to be decoupled from one another and the medium can flow against them in mutually independent manner (see opposite direction arrows for the rotating direction and without structural requirements of the decoupling of the products, the decoupling is intended utilization of the features).
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, 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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernsau (US 20130183139) in view of Ghosh (US 20080170941).
Bernsau discloses the device according to claims 5-6 above.
Bernsau fails to teach the at least one media supply line has a regulating flap which is designed to regulate the mass of the inflowing medium and the regulating flap can be opened completely or partially, and be closed completely or partially, in such a manner that the rotating speed and/or the torque of the device for generating additional negative pressure are/is able to be influenced as a result.
Ghosh teaches a wind turbine device with a shrouded casing (Figure 11) and the at least one media supply line has a regulating flap (25) which is designed to regulate the mass of the inflowing medium and the regulating flap can be opened completely or partially, and be closed completely or partially, in such a manner that the rotating speed and/or the torque of the device for generating additional negative pressure are/is able to be influenced as a result (Paragraph 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bernsau such that the at least one media supply line has a regulating flap which is designed to regulate the mass of the inflowing medium and the regulating flap can be opened completely or partially, and be closed completely or partially, in such a manner that the rotating speed and/or the torque of the device for generating additional negative pressure are/is able to be influenced as a result as taught by Ghosh for the purposes of adjusting the pressure of the chamber in the event of extremely high wind flow, achieving improved performance and reducing damage to the device.
Claims 21-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernsau (US 20130183139).
Regarding claims 21-22;
Bernsau discloses the device according to claims 1, 5, and 14 above.
Bernsau fails to explicitly disclose the device has an apparatus for capturing and transmitting energy and at least one apparatus for storing and providing electrical energy, and the device, when viewed in the flow direction, is provided with a louvre, net, mesh, or with a mat with openings, in the region of the end-side opening of the inlet corpus or in front of the turbine wheel or the device for generating additional negative pressure.
It is taken as official notice that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the wind turbine generating art to utilize the combination of batteries and apparatus (transmission lines for example) to transmit energy to the power grid, and it is further well known in shrouded wind turbines that the inlets can be protected with a net or mesh device at the inlet corpus. Such storage devices allows for power to be available when the wind power device is not operating (battery storage), and the transmission allows for the power to go to the grid whereby it can be transmitted to households and businesses in society. Additionally, such casings need to be protected from debris and birds. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bernsau such that the device has an apparatus for capturing and transmitting energy and at least one apparatus for storing and providing electrical energy for the purposes of storing energy/power when the device is not operational and to transmit power/energy to the grid/society, and the device, when viewed in the flow direction, is provided with a louvre, net, mesh, or with a mat with openings, in the region of the end-side opening of the inlet corpus or in front of the turbine wheel or the device for generating additional negative pressure for the purposes of preventing the ingestion of debris/birds/objects and preventing damage to the device.
Regarding claim 26;
Bernsau discloses the method according to claim 23 above.
Bernsau fails to explicitly teach pivoting of the device is associated with switching on or off individual generators depending on demand for energy.
Bernsau further discloses multiple generators associated with the device (generators 85 and 116) connected through gearboxes (82, 117). It is further known to one of ordinary skill in the art that generators and gearboxes can be respectively disconnected and connected depending on demand for energy. This practice is widely utilized in industry and is known as “load dispatching” or “peak shaving”. Turbines operate at peak efficiency within a range of flow speeds; switching between respective generators ensures the turbines extract the maximum possible energy from the fluid flow. If supply exceeds demand, grid frequency spikes and can trip circuit breakers or cause regional breakouts; if the fluid is flowing at a high rate but demand drops, the grid operators switch off or disconnect individual generators to prevent oversupply. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bernsau such that pivoting of the device is associated with switching on or off individual generators depending on demand for energy for the purposes of preventing oversupply to the grid.
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 JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights