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 .
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant asserts that “Claims 1-9 have been amended, as a whole, to correct informalities, more clearly define the claimed invention and improve readability thereof” (Rem. 9).
However, several of the ambiguities noted previously under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been neither corrected nor expressly addressed by Applicant. A telephone conversation was held with Applicant’s Representative to see why these issues were not addressed (see attached Interview Summary), though no answer was provided. The claims, as amended, have been thoroughly reviewed, and any additional issues are noted hereinbelow.
Applicant’s Representative(s) is/are strongly urged to exercise care when making amendments to both address all issues noted and avoid introduction of ambiguous language and/or new matter. Neglecting to do so causes undue delay in prosecution.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/30/2025. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner notes that the following may not be an exhaustive list of informalities. It is suggested that the applicant thoroughly review the drawings.
Regarding Figures 1-17, replacement drawing(s) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required. The drawing(s) submitted are not acceptable because:
The drawings have a line quality that is too light to be reproduced (the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction) and/or text that is illegible (reference characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible). See 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p)(1).
The drawings must be reasonably free from erasures and must be free from alterations, overwriting, interlineations, folds, and copy marks. See 37 CFR 1.84(e), (l), and (m).
Drawings are to be submitted in black ink (see 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1)). Drawings must also have satisfactory reproduction characteristics; and every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined (see 37 CFR 1.84(l)).
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
N.B. – The previously-raised issues were appropriately addressed, but the new drawings filed are simply not of sufficient quality to permit adequate reproduction.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1-9, each element and/or step should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m).
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the Office Action of 10/01/2025 relative to claim 2 but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Upon review of Applicant’s amended claims, this is applicable to other claims as well. Specifically, if an element is introduced as having several sub-elements or sub-components, each of those sub-elements should also be separated by a line indentation. This will increase claim legibility and may help in obviating some of the clarity issues noted below in the §112(b) section.
Regarding claim 9, lines 1-4, the limitation “The power generation system assembly of claim 1, further comprising: electrical charging lines of the first power generator and the second power generator connected to a storage battery” is awkwardly/non-idiomatically phrased and would be more clearly stated as, e.g.:
—The power generation system assembly of claim 1, further comprising:
electrical charging lines of the first power generator and the second power generator ;
a storage battery; and
on/off contact parts formed on the electrical charging lines ;
wherein the charging lines are connected to the storage battery and provide electrical powers generated by the first power generator and the second power generator, respectively, to the storage battery—.
N.B. – See associated rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and §112(b) below regarding the claimed functional language of the “contact parts”. Should Applicant wish to also include a (clarified) functional description for the “contact parts,” such could be done using a second “wherein” clause following the one indicated above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support
thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
Claim 1: “a support member […] to prevent the second lower panel from sagging […]”. This may be interpreted as, e.g., —a means for supporting […] for preventing sagging […]—, where the term “member” i) is a nonce term, ii) is modified by functional language, and iii) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, thereby meeting the three-prong test discussed above.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 7, the limitation “a second power generation structure disposed in and separated from an inner space” (emphasis added) appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed. Specifically, the claim previously recited “the second power generator is disposed in or separated from an inner space” (at lines 11-12, now deleted). In addition to being unclear (see related rejection below), the disclosure as originally filed does not appear to discuss the possibility of the “second power generation structure” being both “disposed in and separated from an inner space” as now claimed.
Furthermore, Applicant has failed to indicate where support for the newly-added subject matter may be found in the specification as originally filed.
Thus, it is found that the added subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in reference to the elected invention, and therefore comprises new matter impermissible pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “on/off contact parts formed on the electrical charging lines to determine whether to charge the storage battery” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear how such “on/off contact parts” may be capable of “determin[ing] whether to charge the storage battery,” including what structure(s) may allow the “on/off contact parts” to perform any “determin[ation]” of “whether” or not “to charge the storage battery” as claimed. The specification discusses this feature only in paragraph ¶ 72 but this paragraph generally repeats the functional language of the claim, without providing an appropriate written description of how the functionality may be performed or what structure(s) the “contact parts” may comprise in order to perform the functionality of “determin[ing] […]”. Note that “on/off contact parts” would appear to simply comprise an “on/off contact” or switch, not any sort of sensor or processor which could perform the functionality of “determin[ing] whether to charge the storage battery”.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-9, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], 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 1-9 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.
Regarding claims 1-9, the claims comprise multiple limitations which are vague and indefinite. The structure which goes to make up the claimed apparatus must be clearly and positively specified in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
The following examples of language failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are given for Applicant’s benefit. The following, however, may not constitute a complete listing of ambiguous language present in the pending claim(s). Applicant’s Representative(s) is/are encouraged to review the claims to ensure clarity in grammatically and idiomatically correct English, and to also ensure that all the issues noted below are properly corrected.
Regarding claim 1, line 7, the limitation “a second power generation structure disposed in and separated from an inner space” (emphasis added), in addition to appearing to comprise new matter (see related §112(a) rejection above) is vague and indefinite.
First, claim fails to make clear both i) what “an inner space […]” may comprise and ii) what being “separated from an inner space of the first power generation structure” may comprise.
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the Office Action of 10/01/2025 but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Second, the claim fails to make clear how the “second power generation structure” may be both “disposed in and separated from an inner space”—if something is “in” a “space,” it would not appear to be “separated from” that same “space”. As noted above, this limitation does not appear to find support in the disclosure as originally filed and, consequently, the disclosure does not provide an explanation to resolve the noted ambiguity.
Regarding claim 1, lines 14-16, the limitation “a support member disposed between the first lower panel and the second lower panel, the support member being configured to prevent the second lower panel from sagging due to a weight of the second power generator” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear how the “support member” may “prevent […] sagging” as claimed. The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the Office Action of 10/01/2025 but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what the “support member” may comprise. Though there is a “support member 50” illustrated in the drawings (see, e.g., Fig. 1), i) it is unclear what element(s) the “member” is intended to comprise; and ii) it is unclear how such a “support member 50” may be “configured to prevent the second lower panel from sagging due to a weight of the second power generator” as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, line 4, the limitation “the other end” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the Office Action of 10/01/2025 but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 2, line 6, the limitation “wind flowing into a space between the second upper panel and the second lower panel” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear the “space” may be the same as, or is separate and distinct from, the “inner space” set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, lines 9-10, the limitation “the rotor including a through hole formed in a central portion of the rotor through which the shaft part passes” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear which element(s) the “shaft part passes”—the “rotor,” the “through hole,” the “central portion” or the “rotor”.
As previously indicated in the Non-Final Office Action, it is recommended that Applicant avoid the use of pronouns (e.g., “which,” “it”/“its,” etc.) in favor of explicit recitation of the element(s) which are being described, so as to clearly and definitely set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claim 2, lines 13-15, the limitation “a stator disposed on the second lower panel and facing the rotor, the stator including a first bearing disposed in a central portion of the stator and to which the shaft part passing through the through hole is coupled” (underlining showing amendment, emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The phrase “to which the shaft part passing through the through hole is coupled” is unclear: the limitation fails to make clear to what element of the several elements listed the “shaft part” is intended to be “coupled”—the “stator,” the “first bearing,” or the “central portion”.
As previously indicated in the Non-Final Office Action, it is recommended that Applicant avoid the use of pronouns (e.g., “which,” “it”/“its,” etc.) in favor of explicit recitation of the element(s) which are being described, so as to clearly and definitely set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claim 2, lines 17-18, the limitation “the stator being configured to generate electrical energy according to the rotation of the rotor” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The phrase “according to the rotation of the rotor” is not idiomatic and is, consequently, unclear.
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the Office Action of 10/01/2025 but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 3, line 5, the limitation “a rubber elastic spring having […]” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what “a rubber elastic spring” may comprise. The term does not appear to be a term of art; clarification is requested.
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the Office Action of 10/01/2025 but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 3, line 6, the limitation “a second bearing coupled to the other end of the rubber elastic spring and the shaft part” (underlining showing amendment, emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the other end” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Applicant deleted “the other end of the blade” (which had been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for lacking antecedent basis) and added “the other end of the rubber elastic spring,” which lacks antecedent basis. Applicant is kindly requested to avoid newly introducing antecedent basis issues, as doing so only unnecessarily prolongs prosecution.
Second, the phrase “and the shaft part” is missing a verb and/or connecting phrase and is, consequently, vague and indefinite. Said differently, the claim fails to make clear what is being done with or to “the shaft part”.
Regarding claim 4, lines 11-13, the limitation “wherein a catching groove for the rotating tool is formed at one side and the other side of each of the rotation guide protrusions” (underlining showing amendment, emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the other side” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the Office Action of 10/01/2025 but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Second, the phrase “and the other side” is vague and indefinite. Specifically, the limitation is missing a linking verb and/or phrase and fails to make clear what is being done to/with “the other side”. Insofar as the limitation may be attempting to require that a “catching groove” is also “formed at” the “other side,” there is a mis-match between the number of “catching groove” features (only a single “groove” is set forth) and the number of “side[s]”. Said differently, how could “a [single] catching groove” be at both “side[s]”? Wouldn’t there be one “groove” on one “side” and a second “groove” on the “other side”?
Regarding claim 5, lines 16-17, the limitation “wherein a catching groove for the rotating tool is formed at one side and the other side of each of the rotation guide protrusions” is vague and indefinite. See discussion above for the same limitation found in claim 4.
Regarding claims 6, 7, the limitation “the rotating tool includes: […]” is vague and indefinite. Specifically, the claims appear to be further defining the “rotating tool” but the claims are drawn to a “power generation system assembly” and have not been amended to explicitly include the “rotating tool”. Claims 4, 5, upon which claims 6, 7 are respectively dependent, have been amended to indicate that “a height of the lifting and lowering support is configured to be adjusted by being tightened or loosened by a rotating tool”. However, since the claimed “power generation system assembly” does not currently include the “rotating tool,” it is unclear how claims 6, 7, which explicitly limit the “rotating tool” may, in fact, further limit the claimed “power generation system assembly,” as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(d).
To resolve this ambiguity, the “power generation system assembly” may, for example, be amended to explicitly —further comprise— the “rotating tool”.
Regarding claims 6-8, the limitations “at an end thereof” (multiple recitations) are vague and indefinite. As with pronouns (e.g., “which,” “it”/“its,” etc.), whose use Applicant was advised in the Non-Final Office Action to avoid, Applicant is also advised to avoid use of adverbs (e.g., “thereof”) in favor of explicit recitation of the element(s) which are being described so as to clearly and definitely set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “the catching groove” (multiple recitations; it appears at least two such “groove” features may have been introduced), “the rotation guide protrusion” (multiple recitations), “the hook protrusion,” “both ends” (previously noted and neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant) are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “the catching groove” (multiple recitations; it appears at least two such “groove” features may have been introduced), “the rotation guide protrusion” (multiple recitations), “the hook protrusion,” “both ends” (previously noted and neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant) are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, lines 10-11; and similarly in claim 7; the limitation “and catch and pull the rotation guide protrusion to rotate […]” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what element(s) serves to “catch and pull the rotation guide protrusion to rotate […]” as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “The power generation system assembly of claim 1, wherein the support member is configured to be separated by a separating tool, wherein the separating tool includes: […]” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the claimed “power generation system assembly of claim 1” is intended to be further limited by the features of the “separating tool” set forth in claim 8, as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(d). Said differently, claim 8 appears to further define the “separating tool” but the “separating tool” is not being positively claimed as part of the “power generation system assembly”.
To resolve this ambiguity, the “power generation system assembly” may, for example, be amended to explicitly —further comprise— the “separating tool”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “both ends” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
N.B. – The issue above was noted in the Office Action of 10/01/2025 but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the hooking protrusion being configured to be caught in a ring part of a fixed support or a cylindrical portion of the support member” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the hooking protrusion” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the limitation “a ring part of a fixed support or a cylindrical portion of the support member” is unclear. Specifically, the claim fails to make clear what the “fixed support” may be a part of or how it may be related to any of the other features claimed.
Regarding claim 9, lines 5-7, the limitation “on/off contact parts formed on the electrical charging lines to determine whether to charge the storage battery” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how simple “on/off contact parts” may be capable of “determin[in] whether to charge the storage battery” or not. As the originally-filed disclosure does not appear to provide the necessary clarification, see associated rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) above.
Regarding claims 2-9, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 6-8 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. 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.
Regarding claims 6-8, see discussions above for the corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
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.
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office Action, that support be shown for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, to specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
February 26, 2026
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834