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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because: - in Fig. 2, item 58 (bearing) is pointing to the incorrect element. - in Fig. 2, it is unclear which is the magnet that is moving in a plane relative to the vertical direction. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: magnet 50, generator 80. A FULL revision of all of the figures is required. 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. 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.
A full revision of all of the figures 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.
Claims 3 – 11, 15, 16 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 claim 3, if there is one single main float (see Fig. 1, element 20), it is unclear how the first wave energy capture devices (plural) would be radially oriented relative to one another and disposed radially about the float 20. It is not clear which elements are radially oriented relative to the float.
In claim 15, the statement “a wave energy generator…supported by the bearing ring” is mentioned twice in the claim. It is not clear if it was meant to include another limitation pertaining to claim 1 in replacement of the repeated statement.
Clarification is required.
Claims 4 – 11, 16 are rejected due their dependency on claims 3 and 16.
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, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 2015/0260150) in view of Marson (GB 2,463,129) OR Rowe (US 4,492,875).
Sullivan discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A waterborne energy capture device comprising :a track 104 supported by water (since the track is supported by a float; see abstract); a magnet 110 constrained to move along the track 104 along a path of the track; an inductor (coil 106) connected to the track converting motion of the magnet along the track into electrical energy (see abstract); wherein wave motion of the water imparts motion to the track thereby moving the track relative to the magnet generating electrical energy (see Figs. 2A, 2B, 2C; paragraphs 0036, 0038, 0039, 042, 0043, 0045).
The problem to be solve appears to change a position of the track in relation to a plane. Such modification is well-known in the art.
For example, Marson discloses a wave power generator having a track with coils and a magnet 12 moving along the track (see Figs. 1A, 1) and a float 30 and the track is curved about a plane supported buoyantly (via float 30) by water wherein the plane is perpendicular to horizontal (see Figs. 2, 2A) until potentially displaced by wave motion (when float 30 oscillates due to wave force).
It is noted that Rowe, also teaches a wave power generator (see abstract) in which a track is used and the track is curved (inside of container 10) about a plane supported buoyantly (see Fig. 1) by water and the plane is perpendicular to horizontal (see Fig. 1) until potentially displaced by wave motion (see Figs. 2, 3).
Sullivan further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, a float, said float supporting a plurality of energy capture devices (see Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Sullivan and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Marson for the purpose of providing a wave power generator that is inexpensive to manufacture OR modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Rowe for the purpose of providing a wave power generator that can operate for extended periods of time without any maintenance.
Claim(s) 3 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan and (Marson or Rowe) as applied to claims 1, 2 and further in view of Sidenmark (US 2023/0323850).
Sullivan discloses, regarding,
Claim 5, the float 102 is round radial circumference (see Fig. 1B).
Claim 6, the float has a circular cross section and the track is located within the cross section (see Fig. 1B; paragraph 0033).
Claim 3, the plurality of energy capture devices 100 are first wave energy capture devices (see abstract) and are radially oriented relative to one another and disposed radially about the float (since one capture device 100 is surrounded radially by other power devices 100; see Fig. 3a).
However, the Prior Art does not disclose the elements below. On the other hand, Sidenmark also discloses, regarding,
Claim 3, the plurality of energy capture devices 200 are first wave energy capture devices (see abstract) and are radially oriented relative to one another and disposed radially about the float (see Fig. 3a).
Claim 4, least some of the first wave energy capture devices are stacked vertically along the float (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Sidenmark for the purpose of improving a buoy design that is easy to manufacture and has improved durability.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan and (Marson or Rowe) and Sidenmark as applied to claims 1 - 6 above, and further in view of Henry (US 2013/0140823).
The combined energy capture device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined energy capture device does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Henry discloses, regarding,
Claim 7, a deck on the float, (see Fig. 1; paragraph 0087) said deck supporting at least one of solar panels (see Fig. 1, 2; abstract) and at least one wind turbine 16.
Claim 8, a central wind turbine (center turbine along the edge) supported by a bearing ring (see equivalent device holding pylon for turbine in Zoom-in Fig. 1, depicting wind turbine) which maintains the central wind turbine in a vertical position.
Claim 9, radially disposed vertical wind turbines above the float (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined energy capture device as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Henry for the purpose of providing a power system that produces uninterrupted energy in different weather conditions.
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan and (Marson or Rowe), Sidenmark, Henry as applied to claims 1 – 6, 9 above, and further in view of Pechler (US 6,870,280).
The combined energy capture device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined energy capture device does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Pechler discloses, regarding,
Claim 10, directors 30 radially disposed externally to the vertical wind turbines 14 focusing air flow towards the vertical wind turbines (see Figs. 1, 2).
Claim 11, the directors 30 have openings on side surfaces which pull air from within the directors (funnel device effect; see abstract) through a wind turbine generator having an inlet on a radially inward side of the directors (see Figs. 1, 2)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined energy capture device as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Pechler for the purpose of increasing the wind flow towards a wind turbine, thus increase the power output of such device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 – 14 are allowed.
Claims 15, 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, the Examiner appreciates the effort to correct the drawings. However, there are still some minor issues that need correction. See above for more details.
Regarding the remark pertaining to claim 3, first of all, the claim language is unclear (see 112 rejection above). Also, the Prior Art, Sidenmark discloses that the energy capture devices are radially oriented relative to one another and disposed radially about the float (since the capture devices are around the float; see Fig. 3a). The claim language is not specific enough to differentiate the present invention from the prior art.
Regarding the remark pertaining to claims 7 – 9, Henry shows a deck with wind turbines and solar panels (see Fig. 1). It is reminded that the Prior Art, Sullivan, Marson or Rowe disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding the remark pertaining to claim 8, the claim language only discloses that the wind turbine is supported by a bearing. Henry discloses equivalent supporting devices for a wind turbine, which in the life cycle of the wind turbine, the wind turbine is going to be held in a vertical position at a certain point and time (see Henry, Fig. 1).
Again, the claim language is not specific enough to differentiate the present application from the prior art.
Regarding the remark pertaining to claim 9, claim 9 was properly rejected by Henry (see Henry rejection above).
Regarding the remark pertaining to claims 10, 11, that the two wind turbines are allegedly incompatible, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (allegedly unworkable design with respect to claim 10, 11), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Henry and Pechler are in the wind turbine field, which is the same field of endeavor. Anyone with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the teachings and advantages taught by the references.
Regarding the remark pertaining to claim 11, that Pechler allegedly does not disclose opening on side surfaces, an opening is made on the side which lets air to enter the turbine (see Fig. 2). The claim language is not specific enough to differentiate between the present application and the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., when the wind turbine tilts, the bearing ring assists in maintaining the central wind turbine vertical; each track to be disposed like on a spoke of a tire) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 at 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
March 4, 2026