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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 includes the statement “in that it is positioned” but should clearly define that “it” is “the wind router” to improve clarity of the claim. Appropriate correction 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 1-2 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the main axis", “the turbine”, the height”, “the wind router carrier”, “the main shaft”, “the router plate”, “the savonius rotor”, “the other side”, “the blades”, “the turbine rotor”, “the convex part”, “the concave part”, and the convex side” in lines 1-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the component" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As with many of these problems, these claims are replete with antecedent basis issues and should positively recite the first recitation of a structure with “a” or “an” instead or referring to every single item with “the”.
The language “which is undesirable to us” is indefinite and creates lack of clarity in the claim. Not only is it clear what would be desirable or who “us” is referring to in the structure of the claim, it appears to provide no limitations or structure and is unnecessary to the claim as it is simply an opinion and is not relevant to the structure of the claim.
Claim 1 lacks a transitional phrase or a preamble, which creates a lack of clarity and indefiniteness in the claims. See MPEP 2111.03 for a clear discussion of acceptable transitional phrases and their limitations. While “characterized by” is considered synonymous with “comprising”, the way it is used in the limitation of claim 1 does not make it a clear transitional phrase. In the case of claim 1, the term “characterized in that” is only relating to its positioning and does not actually provide characterization of the structure of the wind router and as such does not clearly define the preamble vs the body of the claim. Without a clear transitional phrase it is unclear what is considered as part of the preamble and what is the body of the claim and with that which limitations are considered to be positively recited in the body of the claim. This is further complicated by the claim being directed to “a wind router” while the remainder of the claim includes limitations directed to structures of “the turbine”, “the savonius rotor”, “the blades”, “the wind router carrier”, and “the main shaft” which are not defined as part of the wind router claimed. Discussion of how these limitations will be interpreted is included in the rejections below.
Claim 1 includes the limitations “one or more routers” but does not make it clear if any of these one or more routers are the router set forth previously. If that is intended, the language should be corrected to say “the wind router”. In order to expedite examination, it is being assumed that the one or more routers includes the wind router.
Examiner’s note: As discussed above, claim 1 includes many limitations directed to “the turbine”, “the savonius rotor”, “the blades”, “the wind router carrier”, and “the main shaft”. None of these structures are part of the “wind router” that claim 1 is directed to and as such the structural limitations of these structures are not required to be taught or disclosed by the prior art and they are not limiting for the wind router of claim 1. The relationship between these elements to the wind router, such as the wind router carrier being welded to the wind router, must be disclosed or taught by the prior art but the specific structure of the wind router carrier or the carrier’s relationship to any of the other elements like the main shaft need not be taught or disclosed.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cumings (US 20110070066).
Regarding claim 1, Cumings discloses A wind router (Figures 1-9, item 106), characterized in that it is positioned on the main axis of the turbine (Figure 3 shows the router being mounted around the main axis 122 of a turbine 104), with the possibility that there may be one or more routers (1) on the main axis, depending on the height of the turbine (optional limitations), which is welded to the wind router carrier (2) (Figures 1-9 shows the router 106 being connected to and thereby mounted to the carrier 126 or the top plate above 117. The welding limitaitons are product-by-product limitations and as such are only limited by the structure that such a process imparts on the structure. It is not clear that welding provides any specific structure that forming together, or attaching by a general connection structure would provide. See MPEP 2113 for further information) made of tubes of certain cross-section and wall thickness (As described above, these limitations are related to the structure of the carrier and not the router structure and as such are not required to be taught or disclosed by the prior art), and positioned on the main shaft by a screw connection, in which the router plate is bent in two parts, where one part is straight, and is used to direct the wind from the convex part of the savonius rotor, which is undesirable to us, into the concave part of the savonius rotor (Figures 1-6 show the router having a flat surface 117 on the front side 106 that directs wind a concave part of the rotor 104), while the other side of the blades is slightly curved, and with its curvature causes a whirlwind of wind, thereby achieving the effect of pressure, ie. of pulling the turbine rotor in which way the part of the wind which is on the convex side of the savonius rotor is diverted or positively utilized (These limitations are related to an unclear blade but are being assumed to be the other part of the router plate in order to expedite examination. Figure 4A, item 116 shows a curved portion which is capable of creating a whirlwind of wind and assists in rotation of the rotor. These limitations are functional limitations so as long as in some situation the structure is capable of providing the function, the limitations are met. See MPEP 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 2, Cumings discloses that at the point where the router breaks into two parts there is a movable flap (4) which enters into the component of the router and in that way further positions the turbine rotor. Paragraph 0044 describes that the angle between 117 and 116 can be modified at the point where the router breaks between 117 and 116, meaning that the flap is movable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. Each of the pieces of prior art cited but not relied upon shows fluid deflection mechanisms around a rotary turbine with various shapes and connection structures to the turbine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745