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 with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 16 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 on 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 112(b) rejection for relative terms of high and low, applicant argues that adding the phrase “the high pressure being higher than the low pressure” overcomes the rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim still recites high and low pressures and it is still not clear how low or how high the pressures should be in order to be considered low pressure or high pressure. One way to obviate this rejection is to change high and low to first and second. Regarding the 102 rejection, applicant argues that Koschel does not disclose a wing profile structure having a high pressure side and a low pressure side because Koschel paragraph [0009] explains that the cross-section of the central airfoil (105) has a shape of biconvex airfoil section preferably drop-shaped. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, applicant has not recited a specific shape for their wing. Secondly, the claim recites that the high and low pressures are generated “from the fluid that passes along the wing profile.” Koschel clearly discloses inlets from which the fluid enters and discloses outlets from which the fluid exits. Wherever these inlets and outlets are, can be interpreted as “sides”, and by virtue of fluid flowing from the inlets to the outlets, there is a pressure gradient that has a higher pressure at the inlets, otherwise fluid would not naturally flow from the inlet to the outlet. Moreover, there is a certain amount of pressure drop merely by virtue of fluid passing through the fluid connection between the inlet and outlet. Furthermore, the inlets are near the leading edge which has a higher pressure. Therefore, there are at least three reasons for a pressure gradient in which there is a pressure that is lower than another pressure. Applicant further argues that the central airfoil of Koschel does not have apertures in the first and second side. The examine respectfully disagrees and notes that applicant seem to have a narrow interpretation of the claim language because wherever the apertures are, those surfaces can be called first and second sides. Also note that the claim recites comprises at least one. Note that comprise is an open transitional phrase and furthermore the claim recites at least one. Applicant further argues that the aerodynamic principle of Koschel is different from the one of the invention. The examiner notes that claim 1 is an apparatus type claim and as long as a prior art disclose all the structures of claim 1 and is capable of performing the recited functions, the prior art reads on claim 1, and in the instant case, Koschel discloses all the recited structures and functions. Claim 1 has not disclosed any particular “aerodynamic principle”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5, 7, and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The terms “low” and “high” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “low” and “high” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is not clear how low or how high the pressures should be in order to be considered low pressure or high pressure.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 2-5, 7, and 16 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-5, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koschel (US 2021/0239088).
With regard to claim 1, Koschel discloses a system for generating electricity from a fluid comprising: a wing profile structure (105) comprising a first side (the side where 110 is located) configured to generate a low pressure (note that low is a subjective and relative term. It is low pressure by virtue of being near or at the trailing edge, and also by virtue of having outlets located there), from the fluid that passes along the wing profile, and a second side (the side where 108 is located) configured to generate a high pressure (note that high is a subjective and relative term. It is high pressure by virtue of being near or at the leading edge, and also by virtue of having inlets located there) from the fluid that passes along the wing profile, the high pressure being higher than the low pressure (the high pressure is higher than the low pressure by virtue of being near or at the leading edge, and also by virtue of having inlets located there), wherein the first side comprises at least one first aperture (110); the second side comprises at least one second aperture (108); between the at least one first aperture and the at least one second aperture, a fluid connection is provided through the wing profile structure (Fig. 7, 9); and between the at least one first aperture and the at least one second aperture an electricity generating device (101) is positioned such that fluid flowing from the second side to the first side through the fluid connection passes the electricity generating device (Fig. 7, 9), which is configured to generate electricity from the fluid that passes from the second aperture to the first aperture via the fluid connection through the wing profile structure ([0055)].
With regard to claim 2, Koschel further discloses that the fluid connection is formed by a cavity inside of the wing profile structure (Fig. 7, 9).
With regard to claim 3, Koschel further discloses that the electricity generating device is positioned inside of the cavity (Fig. 7, 9).
With regard to claim 4, Koschel further discloses that the cavity comprises at least one first cavity part between the at least one first aperture and the electricity generating device, and at least one second cavity part between the at least one second aperture and the electricity generating device (Fig. 7, 9).
With regard to claim 5, Koschel further discloses that the cavity forms a passage enclosing the electricity generating device such that all fluid flowing from the at least second aperture to the at least first aperture passes the electricity generating device (Fig. 7, 9).
With regard to claim 7, Koschel further discloses that the at least one first cavity part and the at least one second cavity part are funnel shaped tapering towards a passage of the cavity containing the electricity generating device, or, wherein the at least one first cavity part or the at least one second cavity part are funnel shaped tapering towards a passage of the cavity containing the electricity generating device (Fig. 7, 9).
With regard to claim 16, Koschel further discloses that the electricity generating device is in a sealed configuration in the cavity (Fig. 7, 9).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 1-5, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Avramenko (RU2 546 368).
With regard to claim 1, Avramenko discloses a system for generating electricity from a fluid comprising: a wing profile structure (Fig. 1-12) comprising a first side (4) configured to generate a low pressure, from the fluid that passes along the wing profile, and a second side (3) configured to generate a high pressure from the fluid that passes along the wing profile, the high pressure being higher than the low pressure (see Avramenko disclosing that the air pressure on the part (3) is greater than the pressure on the part (4), as a result of which air is drawn into the channel (2) connecting these parts of the wing. See page 3 of the provided translation, lines 20-22), wherein the first side comprises at least one first aperture (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12); the second side comprises at least one second aperture (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12); between the at least one first aperture and the at least one second aperture, a fluid connection (2) is provided through the wing profile structure (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12); and between the at least one first aperture and the at least one second aperture an electricity generating device (5, 6) is positioned such that fluid flowing from the second side to the first side through the fluid connection passes the electricity generating device (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12), which is configured to generate electricity from the fluid that passes from the second aperture to the first aperture via the fluid connection through the wing profile structure (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12).
With regard to claim 2, Avramenko further discloses that the fluid connection is formed by a cavity inside of the wing profile structure (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12).
With regard to claim 3, Avramenko further discloses that the electricity generating device is positioned inside of the cavity (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12).
With regard to claim 4, Avramenko further discloses that the cavity comprises at least one first cavity part between the at least one first aperture and the electricity generating device, and at least one second cavity part between the at least one second aperture and the electricity generating device (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12).
With regard to claim 5, Avramenko further discloses that the cavity forms a passage enclosing the electricity generating device such that all fluid flowing from the at least second aperture to the at least first aperture passes the electricity generating device (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12).
With regard to claim 7, Avramenko further discloses that the at least one first cavity part and the at least one second cavity part are funnel shaped tapering towards a passage of the cavity containing the electricity generating device, or, wherein the at least one first cavity part or the at least one second cavity part are funnel shaped tapering towards a passage of the cavity containing the electricity generating device (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12).
With regard to claim 16, Avramenko further discloses that the electricity generating device is in a sealed configuration in the cavity (Fig. 1-3, 11, 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar systems such as US 7605491.
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 BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights