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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
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)).
Applicants are encouraged to avail themselves of the opportunity to hold an interview, as these are generally helpful for both Applicants and the Examiner to more expeditiously identify and clearly define potentially allowable subject matter.
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
The NPL documents submitted 11/13/2025 and cited in the accompanying IDS are of adequate legibility and have been considered.
The Drawings submitted 11/13/2025 unfortunately suffer from generally the same clarity issues as those previously submitted. See relevant section below for further discussion.
Regarding the previous objection to the specification under 35 U.S.C. §132(a), Applicant’s indication of where support could be found is helpful (and should have been provided previously so as to avoid unnecessary delay; see MPEP 2163(II)(A)); the cited portion of the specification does appear to provide adequate support for the changing of “bluff body [100]” to “oscillating body [100]” in the amendment of 05/14/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 regarding the lack of written description for the claim 1 limitation requiring “the aerodynamic barrier having, in a plane perpendicular to a flow direction, a cross-sectional area greater than a corresponding cross-sectional area of the oscillating body” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant points to language in the specification discussing a “plane section” being either “longer” or “larger”. However, there is no written description of what the “plane section” itself may comprise, this does not appear to be a term of art, and the drawings fail to show any such “plane section”. Whereas, certainly, subject matter need not be described in haec verba, it does need to be described adequately so that a person of ordinary skill would at least understand what is being described. Here, there is no description of what a “plane section” may be (remember, any 3-D object may have at least three cross-sections, along each of the x-, y-, and z-planes, as well as an infinite number of other cross-sections in other directions), especially in relation to the disclosed invention. As the claims have been amended to include terminology not present in the application as filed, and involve an addition to, and perhaps departure from, the as-filed disclosure, a conclusion that the subject matter was not adequately described in the application is appropriate. See MPEP 2163.02. Applicant’s arguments are, respectfully, not found to be persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the prior art rejection in light of the Medrano Sanchez reference, respectfully, Applicant’s arguments fail to specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference. Applicant has emphasized several of the claim 1 limitations (Rem. 13-14, in bold, underlined, and italicized font), including some which were previously indicated as taught by Medrano Sanchez, without specifically pointing out how the claim language may be patentably distinguished from the reference. As such, Applicant’s reply does not appear to be fully responsive (see 37 CFR 1.111(b), MPEP 714.02).
However, Applicant’s Reply does appear to be a bona fide attempt to advance prosecution and, in order to expedite prosecution, the Examiner is treating Applicant’s amendment of 11/13/2025 as an adequate reply and is acting on the amendment (MPEP 714.03).
Upon further review of the amended claim language, it appears that the Medrano Sanchez reference could still be interpreted as anticipating the claimed invention, even as currently amended. However, in light of certain ambiguities, a discussion of how the claimed invention would also be rendered obvious in light of the prior art is also provided.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/13/2025. 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 1-11, 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 are greyscale and prevent suitable reproduction.
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).
Reference characters must be plain and legible. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1).
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 Drawings filed 11/13/2025 are generally of the same (unacceptable) quality as the previously-filed drawing set. Due to file type conversion issues, Drawings stored and viewable in Patent Center (which are stored as image file(s)) may differ in image quality from Applicant’s own Drawings file (often uploaded as a PDF document). As such, should Applicant decide to pursue prosecution, Applicant is advised to view the drawings within Patent Center to determine if there is any image degradation (e.g., pixelation, blurred lines, etc.). This often occurs when the original drawings use color(s) other than pure black and may arise even if lines are drawn in, e.g., dark grey and appear “black”.
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 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 1-5 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, the limitation “the aerodynamic barrier having, in a plane perpendicular to a flow direction, a cross-sectional area greater than a corresponding cross-sectional area of the oscillating body” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to discuss this feature and fails to even mention either of the terms “area” or “cross-section[al]”. Lastly, even though expressly requested by the Office, Applicant has failed to indicate where support for the newly-amended claim language may be provided in the disclosure as originally filed. See Response to Arguments section above for further discussion.
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 claim 3, the limitation “the aerodynamic barrier is configured to slidably move to adjust a distance between the oscillating body and the aerodynamic barrier” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear how the “aerodynamic barrier” may be “configured to slidably move to adjust a distance […]” as claimed. The claim previously included the structural term “slider” but this has been removed from the claim language. The specification fails to provide a written description of how the “aerodynamic barrier” may be structurally “configured to” perform the claimed functionality, including what a “slider” may comprise or how such a “slider” may “adjust a distance between the oscillating body and the aerodynamic barrier,” including what structure(s) may allow the “slider” to perform the claimed functionality. The specification discusses a “slider 510” on, e.g., p. 10 but, though the feature is named, the specification does not provide a written description of what it may be or what structure(s) it may comprise.
Respectfully, deleting the phrase “via a slider” from the claim fails to resolve this issue. The underlying issue—i.e., a lack of adequate written description in the as-filed disclosure regarding how the functionality may be achieved, including what structure(s) would allow the functionality to be achieved—remains.
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 2-5, 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.
Claims 1-5 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 claim 1, line 11, the limitation “the oscillation of the oscillating body” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Specifically, Applicant has deleted the introduction of the term “oscillation of the oscillating body” (in the now-deleted limitation on lines 7-8) and has not appropriately introduced the term elsewhere. The limitation “the oscillating body is configured to oscillate due to vortices” on line 16 implicitly introduces an “oscillat[ion]” but this limitation appears after the recitation of “the oscillation” on line 11.
Regarding claim 1, lines 20-21, the limitation “wherein the oscillation of the oscillating body is converted into the unidirectional rotation of the shaft to cause the generator to generate electric energy” is vague and indefinite. Specifically, the limitation appears at least partially duplicative of the limitations “a gear box configured to […] convert the oscillation of the oscillating body into a unidirectional rotation of a shaft” and “a generator connected to the gear box via the shaft”. It is unclear why the claim generally repeats these limitations.
Regarding claim 1, lines 22-25, the limitation “the aerodynamic barrier is bent at or rounded around a central portion of the aerodynamic barrier, so that the fluid flow colliding against the aerodynamic barrier is prevented from flowing outward and thus induced to flow toward the oscillating body to generate the vortices” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what being “bent at or rounded around a central portion of the aerodynamic barrier” is intended to mean, including what the difference (if any) of being “bent at” or “rounded around” may be.
Second, the descriptive language “so that the fluid flow colliding against the aerodynamic barrier is prevented from flowing outward and thus induced to flow toward the oscillating body to generate the vortices” is understood simply to be a result of the structural requirement of the “aerodynamic barrier” being “bent at or rounded around a central portion” thereof. If Applicant intends otherwise, such should be made clear.
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).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the gear box is configured to convert reciprocal rotations of the shaft into the unidirectional rotation” is vague and indefinite.
First, this limitation appears to be generally duplicative of the limitation of claim 1, which, as amended, requires “a gear box configured to […] convert the oscillation of the oscillating body into a unidirectional rotation of a shaft” (emphasis added). As such, the claim fails to make clear how the “harvester” of claim 1 is intended to be further limited, as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(d).
Second, 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). Thus, if Applicant intends, somehow, to further limit the “gear box” set forth in claim 1, such should be done in terms of structure.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the aerodynamic barrier is configured to slidably move to adjust a distance between the oscillating body and the aerodynamic barrier” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear how the “aerodynamic barrier” may be “configured,” specifically, “to slidably move to adjust a distance between the oscillating body and the aerodynamic barrier” as claimed.
Second, and relatedly, 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 09/19/2025 but has been not been corrected by Applicant.
In the instant claim set, Applicant has deleted the phrase “via a slider” but has kept the associated functional language, apparently in an attempt to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and §112(b). However, as the originally-filed disclosure fails to provide adequate written description for how the “aerodynamic barrier” may be “configured,” very specifically, “to slidably move to adjust a distance between the oscillating body and the aerodynamic barrier” as claimed, deleting only the associated structural term while maintaining claim to the functional language fails to resolve the issue. The claimed subject matter still lacks adequate written description in the disclosure as originally-filed. Respectfully, Applicant would be better served by—and is legally limited to—claiming only subject matter for which adequate written description is provided in the disclosure as originally-filed. Here, canceling the instant claim would obviate this issue.
Regarding claims 2-5, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 2 is 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 claim 2, see above in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) section for further discussion.
For the purpose of expediting prosecution, prior art will be applied in reference to the claims as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Medrano Sanchez (WO 2016/116657 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medrano Sanchez (WO 2016/116657 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (“Experimental investigation of aerodynamic energy harvester […],” 2018).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Medrano Sanchez discloses a bladeless wind energy harvester comprising:
an oscillating body (obstructing body 2);
an aerodynamic barrier (von Karman vortex street enhancer 3) disposed downstream of the oscillating body (2) with respect to a fluid flow, the aerodynamic barrier being spaced apart from the oscillating body (see, e.g., Fig. 8C: enhancer 3 is shown as downstream of body 2 and separate/spaced apart from body 2; see also, e.g., ¶ 34, indicating that i) either downstream or upstream placement of enhancer 3 relative to body 2 is possible, and also that ii) enhancer 3 may be separated from or attached to body 2), and the aerodynamic barrier (3) having, in a plane perpendicular to a flow direction of the fluid flow, a cross-sectional area greater than a cross-sectional area of the oscillating body (see, e.g., Figs. 8C, 9B: enhancer 3 is wider than body 2 and thus would have a larger cross-sectional area in a plane of the oncoming air flow);
a gear box (including, e.g., crank 11, rod 12, gears 14, 16 connecting to gearbox 17) configured to
rotatably support the oscillating body (see, e.g., Figs. 1, 2, 5), and
convert the oscillation of the oscillating body into a unidirectional rotation of a shaft (crank 11 and rod 12 convert back-and-forth motion of body 2 into unidirectional rotation which is transferred via gears 14, 16 to gearbox 17 to then drive generator 18); and
a generator (generator 18) connected to the gear box via the shaft (shaft, implied but not separately labeled, between gearbox 17 and generator 18; see, e.g., Fig. 2; ¶¶ 57, 72),
wherein the oscillating body (2) and the aerodynamic barrier (3) are arranged such that a longitudinal axis of the oscillating body is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the aerodynamic barrier in a plane perpendicular to the flow direction of the fluid flow (see, e.g., Figs. 6, 8C), and the oscillating body is configured to oscillate due to vortices generated by the fluid flow interacting with the aerodynamic barrier (see, e.g., ¶ 25),
wherein the oscillation of the oscillating body (2) is converted into the unidirectional rotation of the shaft to cause the generator to generate electric energy (as discussed above: crank 11 and rod 12 convert back-and-forth motion of body 2 into unidirectional rotation which is transferred via gears 14, 16 to gearbox 17 to then drive generator 18), and
wherein the aerodynamic barrier (3) is bent at or rounded around a central portion of the aerodynamic barrier (see, e.g., Figs. 8B-8C, 9A-9B: Medrano Sanchez teaches multiple shapes of barrier/enhancer 3, including a shape where barrier/enhancer 3 may be described as being rounded around a central portion of itself—see especially Fig. 9B; note that, even though Fig. 9B shows the case where they are attached together, Medrano Sanchez expressly teaches, in, e.g., ¶ 34, that the enhancer 3 may be attached to or separated from body 2, and thus one would understand that whereas Fig. 9B shows the “attached” option, a “separated” option is also taught) so that the fluid flow colliding against the aerodynamic barrier is prevented from flowing outward and thus induced to flow toward the oscillating body to generate the vortices (as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) section above, this language appears simply to indicate the functionality associated with the structure explicitly claimed above; as the structure appears to be taught, so too would the functionality).
Now, whereas Medrano Sanchez appears to teach the claimed structure, it is noted that requiring the “aerodynamic barrier” to be “bent at or rounded around a central portion of [itself]” appears to result simply from a mere change in shape of the “aerodynamic barrier” and thus the claimed structure would appear to be nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Specifically, Zhang et al. (Figs. 1(a), 1(b), 2) teaches a bladeless wind energy harvester comprising:
an oscillating body (original cylinder);
an aerodynamic barrier (interference cylinder) disposed downstream of the oscillating body with respect to a fluid flow, the aerodynamic barrier being spaced apart from the oscillating body (see Fig. 1(a));
and, notably, teaches varying a shape of the aerodynamic barrier (see, e.g., Fig. 1(b)) for the purpose of optimizing energy harvesting under smaller wind speeds and over a wide bandwidth (see Abstract). Zhang et al. expressly teaches that the aerodynamic barrier may be bent at or rounded around a central portion of the aerodynamic barrier (see Figs. 1(b), 2: both the circular and D-shape cross sections of the interference cylinder are rounded around a central portion thereof; and the triangular cross section could be interpreted as being “bent at” a central portion thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wind energy harvester of Medrano Sanchez with an aerodynamic barrier having any of a number of cross-sectional shapes, including being bent at or rounded around a central portion of the aerodynamic barrier, as taught by Zhang et al., for the purpose of optimizing the output power of energy harvested from the harvester, including when operating under small wind speeds (see, e.g., Abstract; p. 971, section 2). Doing so would have been especially obvious in light of the teachings of Zhang et al., as a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Medrano Sanchez further discloses that the gear box is configured to convert reciprocal rotations of the shaft into the unidirectional rotation (via crank 11 and rod 12 which converts reciprocal motions of obstructing body 2 into a unidirectional rotation of generator 18; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Medrano Sanchez further discloses a base having a rotatable foundation plate (e.g., foundation gear 5) configured to support the gear box (gearbox 17) and the aerodynamic barrier (enhancer 3) such that the gear box and the aerodynamic barrier are rotatable with the rotatable foundation plate about a vertical axis, wherein the vertical axis is aligned with a direction of gravity (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Medrano Sanchez further discloses a flow guide (e.g., weather vane 4) attached to the rotatable foundation plate supporting the oscillating body and the aerodynamic barrier (see, e.g., Fig. 1), wherein the flow guide is configured to cause the rotatable foundation plate to rotate about the vertical axis so as to orient the aerodynamic barrier toward a wind direction (see, e.g., ¶ 48: weather vane 4 informs control device 9 to rotate foundation gear 5 via gear 6 and motor 24).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Applicant should, in response to this Office Action, provide support for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. See MPEP 2163(II)(A). That is, Applicant should specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or feature(s) in the original drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added. See 35 U.S.C. §132(a).
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
April 3, 2026
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834