DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with respect to the drawing and specification amendments, the “textual descriptions are clear and complete, and have provided sufficient and clear basis for persons of ordinary skill in the art to understand the technical solution of the present application” and “illustration of the locking device, persons of ordinary skill in the art, based on common general knowledge in the field, can fully understand the conventional structures of the "magnetic structure and mechanical structure in which a convex part is matched with a clamping slot", and thus can accurately understand the locking device without additional detailed diagrams. In addition, according to MPEP 608.02(d):"conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). ", Given that the specific structure and shape of the "magnetic structure and mechanical structure in which a convex part is matched with a clamping slot" belong to common general knowledge in the field, the marks and position indications in the newly added drawings have fully met the needs of persons of ordinary skill in the art to understand the locking device”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Examiner agrees that the specification sufficiently supports the location and existence of a locking device, the textual description in the specification and visual disclosure in the drawings lack sufficient structural detail that is essential for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a proper understanding of the invention. The textual description is extremely vague and both the original drawings and the newly added figures (Fig 2a, Fig 2b) simply do not show “a convex part”, nor do they show “a locking device (which may be a clamping slot)” as described in P[0086]. Furthermore, the drawings, as originally filed, and as amended, also fail to show “a magnetic structure”, “a mechanical structure”, “a convex part” and “a clamping slot” as described in amended P[0040]. Ultimately, the amendments to P[0023], P[0040] and the drawings add new matter and fail to comply with the written description requirement, because there is no support in the specification and/or the drawings as originally filed. Furthermore, regarding Applicant’s citation of MPEP 608.02(d) and accompanying assertion that the installation position and specific type of locking device is not conventional, however, the specific structure and shape of the type of locking device is conventional, Examiner does not agree. First, the installation position of the locking device is not claimed. Further, if the specific structure and shape of the locking device is conventional, as Applicant readily admits, it is not understood how the type of locking device, which is dictated by the specific structure and shape, is not also conventional. It appears that if Applicant were to rely on MPEP 608.02(d) to justify the lack of details in the disclosure with respect to the locking device then the claimed locking device must also be considered conventional to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Regardless, it appears Schellstede, used previously to teach the locking device of claim 4, teaches all required limitations of amended claim 1.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 12/23/25. They were not entered as part of Applicant’s after final submission. The drawing were not resubmitted along with the request for continued examination on 1/23/26. However, in an effort to advance prosecution, the drawings submitted on 12/23/25 are not acceptable because they fail to show a locking device as described in the specification. It appears Applicant has merely added reference characters to a figure that lacks structural details of the locking device, as the original drawings and the newly added figures (Fig 2a, Fig 2b) simply do not show “a convex part”, nor do they show “a locking device (which may be a clamping slot)” as described in P[0086]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 “wherein the tower further comprises a locking device, wherein the locking device is a magnetic structure or a mechanical structure in which a convex part is matched with a clamping slot” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). While Applicant added figures 2a and 2b with reference characters corresponding the above components, the newly added figures simply do not show “a locking device, wherein the locking device is a magnetic structure or a mechanical structure in which a convex part is matched with a clamping slot“. 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 1/23/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
P[0020] of the specification has been amended to include “15a, magnetic structure; 15b, mechanical structure; 151b, convex part; 152b, clamping slot” . It appears that Applicant's drawings do not have sufficient support for the new features 15a, 15b, 151b and 152b, therefore the added text would be considered new matter. Further, while the drawings may be relied upon to support a claimed limitation it is not apparent which portion and/or portions of the original and/or newly amended drawings disclose the added features.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scocca (IT CB20100006 A1) in view of Schellstede (US 20130078109). The English Translation of Scocca provided to be referenced hereinafter.
In Regard to Claim 1
Scocca teaches:
A vertical axis wind turbine(Fig 1; P[0020]), comprising: a tower(VIIII; P[0012], see annotated fig below), a main shaft(IV, see annotated fig below), a supporting rod(III, see annotated fig below) and a blade(II; P[0006], P[0007]); wherein
the main shaft is connected with the tower(at VI), and the main shaft is provided to be rotatable around a central axis of the tower(see annotated fig below; Examiner notes the main shaft is at least capable of rotating around a central axis of the tower);
the blade is connected to the main shaft by the supporting rod(see annotated fig below);
the tower is retractable(Fig 1; P[0012]-P[0015]);
Scocca fails to teach:
wherein the tower further comprises: a locking device; wherein the locking device is a magnetic structure or mechanical structure in which a convex part is matched with a clamping slot
Schellstede teaches:
An analogous wind turbine device having a telescoping tower(Fig 1,2A,2B) with a first section and second section(Fig 5), wherein the tower further comprises: a locking device(cam + air cylinder + receiving groove, or locking pin + receiving receptacle; Fig 5; P[0028], P[0029]); wherein the locking device is a mechanical structure(cam + air cylinder, or locking pin are mechanical structures) in which a convex part(cam or locking pin) is matched with a clamping slot(“groove” or locking pin receptacle as shown in Fig 5; P[0028], P[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scocca to incorporate the teachings of Schellstede to use a locking device as taught by Schellstede to provide more secure connections or to improve alignments between tower sections, and to allow for easier repositioning of tower sections relative to one another(P[0028], P[0029]).
PNG
media_image1.png
799
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Regard to Claim 2
Scocca in view of Schellstede teaches:
The vertical axis wind turbine according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the tower comprises a plurality of sections comprising at least a first section and a second section(there sections shown in annotated fig above); the first section is provided to be movable between a first position and a second position along the central axis of the tower(see annotated fig above);
wherein when the first section is at the first position(see annotated fig above), the first section protrudes from the second section(see annotated fig above); when the first section is at the second position, the first section is accommodated in the second section(see annotated fig above).
In Regard to Claim 4
Scocca in view of Schellstede teaches:
The vertical axis wind turbine according to claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein when the first section is at the first position or the second position, the first section is held in its position by the locking device(P[0028], P[0029] of Schellstede).
In Regard to Claim 6
Scocca in view of Schellstede teaches:
The vertical axis wind turbine according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the blade has a first state(extended state; see annotated fig above) and a second state(retracted state; see annotated fig above);
when the blade is in the first state, there is a first distance between the blade and the main shaft(see annotated fig above);
when the blade is in the second state, there is a second distance between the blade and the main shaft(see annotated fig above), and the second distance is less than the first distance(see annotated fig above).
In Regard to Claim 7
Scocca in view of Schellstede teaches:
The vertical axis wind turbine according to claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the blade has a first state(extended state; see annotated fig above) and a second state(retracted state; see annotated fig above);
when the blade is in the first state, there is a first distance between the blade and the main shaft(see annotated fig above);
when the blade is in the second state, there is a second distance between the blade and the main shaft(see annotated fig above), and the second distance is less than the first distance(see annotated fig above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711