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 .
Applicants Pro Se
Though there is currently a Power of Attorney on file in this application—filed 12/12/2024, to Practitioners associated with Customer Number 1678, for which Stephen Evans (Reg. No. 47,287) and Donald Schurr (Reg. No. 34,247) are the listed attorneys—given the overwhelming number of deficiencies present in the claims and ambiguities in the application papers, it appears that Applicant’s Representative(s) may not have reviewed the application prior to filing to ensure conformity with current U.S. patent practices. Such a review and appropriate revision should be done prior to filing to avoid any undue delay in prosecution. The following is respectfully noted in case Applicant may be acting, or should decide to act, Pro Se (i.e., without the benefit of representation of a registered patent practitioner).
An examination of this application reveals that applicant is unfamiliar with patent prosecution procedure. While an applicant may prosecute the application (except that a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner, 37 CFR 1.31), lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicant is advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to prosecute the application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting an attorney or agent.
A listing of registered patent attorneys and agents is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent attorneys and agents located in their area by writing to the Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
For assistance with filing related matters, the USPTO’s Electronic Business Center (EBC) may be contacted—information is provided at the end of this Office Action.
Should Applicant intend to continue prosecution of this or another patent application without assistance from a registered practitioner, Applicant is informed of the USPTO’s Pro Se Assistance Program, which may be reached, toll free, at 1-866-767-3848. Additional information may be found at the following internet address:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program
Applicant may also find assistance through the Law School Clinic Certification Program which includes over 60 participating law school clinics that provide legal services pro bono to the public, including to inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses.
Additional information may be found at the following internet address:
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/public-information-about-practitioners/law-school-clinic-1
Preliminary Formalities
A thorough review of both the claims and the disclosure has been made. Pursuant to MPEP 707.07(j), and for the purposes of assisting Applicant and expediting prosecution, it is respectfully noted that there does not appear to be any patentable subject matter disclosed in the application.
Specifically, Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to provide satisfactory written description of the invention as claimed. Relatedly, the claims comprise several indefinite limitations for which insufficient written description appears to have been provided in the disclosure as originally filed. That is, the claimed invention fails to meet the requirements of both 35 U.S.C. §112(b) and §112(a). In order to address and overcome at least the written description issues, it would appear that new matter would need to be provided; however, introduction of new matter is prohibited pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §132(a) and §112(a).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/17/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, no legible copy of Foreign Document CN 204984730 or EP 3115603 was provided in the application. As such, these documents were not considered.
N.B. – The English-language translations provided by Applicant comprise text that is generally illegible. As such, Applicant’s copies cannot be considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 07/17/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, no concise explanation of Foreign Document CN 204984730 or EP 3115603 was provided in the application. As such, these documents were not considered.
N.B. – If these documents were first cited in a Foreign Office Action, such Action should be submitted to the USPTO for consideration. Applicant is reminded of their Duty to Disclose information material to patentability. See 37 CFR 1.56.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A certified copy of DE 10 2023 135 121.4, filed 14 Dec. 2023, has been received.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, line 1, the preamble is missing a colon (“:”)—the phrase “A method for generating electricity by wind power, comprising […]” should be, it seems1: —A method for generating electricity by wind power, the method comprising: […]—.
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 1-20 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, and relatedly in claim 20, the limitation “A wind-powered apparatus for generating electricity, comprising: […] a movable lever assembly […] wherein the lever assembly comprises lever linkage configured to be able to perform a reciprocating motion between a first reciprocating position and a second reciprocating position without losing the operative connection to the first drive shaft and to the second drive shaft” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what a “a movable lever assembly” may comprise, including what a “lever linkage” may comprise or how such a “lever linkage” may be “configured to be able to perform a reciprocating motion between a first reciprocating position and a second reciprocating position without losing the operative connection to the first drive shaft and to the second drive shaft,” as claimed.
With attention to Fig. 1, illustrating the alleged invention, the “movable lever assembly 6” is shown as a single line, without any actual structure. This “movable lever assembly 6” is shown as comprising other lines, such as “lever linkage 7,” which appears to comprise an “effort arm 11” and a “lever arm 8” as well as a “load arm 12”—though all three of these reference characters point to the same line, albeit different portions of the same line.
The illustration appears to be a schematic or abstract depiction of the invention, rather than a realistic drawing of what the invention might actually be, including what actual components would allow for making and using this alleged device.
Furthermore, again looking at Fig. 1, it is quite unclear how the invention as depicted could actually operate. The “vertical rotor 2,” even though elevated above “inclined planes 24,” does not appear to have any support—e.g., a mast or tower—and it is unclear whether the “vertical rotor 2” is intended to operate as, e.g., a kite, or more like a traditional wind turbine. However, in the latter case, absolutely no structural support for the “rotor 2” appears to have been disclosed.
Turning to Fig. 2, the figure indicates “linear motion 31 of the slider” but fails to illustrate any actual structure(s) which would allow for such “linear motion,” especially as the only input of motion appears to be the “rotational motion 30” of “shaft 3”. If “first drive shaft 3” has “rotational motion 30” as indicated, it would seem that “pull rope 29” would be continually wound in a single direction onto “slider 28”. Not only would it seem that “slider 28” would not move linearly back and forth as indicated by arrow “31” but one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that once “pull rope 29” is fully wound on “slider 28” due to “rotation 30” of “shaft 3,” then the “shaft 3” would be stopped.
Furthermore, the disclosure fails to make clear how the alleged “reciprocating motion 10” could even result in “rotational motion 33” of the “second drive shaft 4” to thereby drive the “electric generator 5”. There is a “linkage 27” connected between “moving weights 23” and the “electric generator 5,” but there is absolutely no disclosure of what “linkage 27” may comprise and how it could function to transform “linear motion 26” into “rotational motion 33”.
For at least these reasons, it is respectfully noted that the written description provided by the disclosure as originally filed is wholly inadequate. Applicant appears to have had an idea, sketched it out cursorily, and filed said sketch.
Thus, respectfully, 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 2-19, 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 1-20 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 1-20, the claims comprise numerous indefinite limitations. 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).
Regarding claim 1, line 2; and relatedly in claim 20, line 2; the limitation “a vertical rotor” is vague and indefinite. The term “vertical” is a relative term which renders the limitation indefinite. The claim fails to clearly set forth a point or plane of reference by which to define the term “vertical”. The claim also fails to make clear how the “rotor” may be deemed “vertical”.
Regarding claim 1, line 10, the limitation “said shaft” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the claim recites both “a first drive shaft” and “a second drive shaft”—the limitation “the shaft” fails to make clear to which of these two elements reference is intended.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6 and 11-14; and relatedly in claim 9, lines 3 and 9-12; the limitations “a movable lever assembly” and “the lever assembly comprises lever linkage configured to be able to perform a reciprocating motion between a first reciprocating position and a second reciprocating position without losing the operative connection to the first drive shaft and to the second drive shaft” (emphasis added) are vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what a “movable lever assembly” may comprise. The claim appears to indicate that the “movable lever assembly” may comprise a “lever linkage,” but, similarly, the claim fails to make clear what a “lever linkage” may comprise. Neither term appears to be a term of art and while Applicant may act as their own lexicographer, the meaning of every term should be apparent (MPEP 2173.05(a)). Here, the disclosure also fails to make clear what either of these components may comprise, including what structure(s) each may comprise. See associated rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) above for further discussion.
Second, the phrase “comprises lever linkage configured […]” is grammatically incorrect. The phrase appears to be missing at least an article.
Third, the claim fails to make clear how a “lever linkage” may be “configured to be able to perform a reciprocating motion between a first reciprocating position and a second reciprocating position” specifically “without losing the operative connection to the first drive shaft and to the second drive shaft” 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).
Fourth, the phrase “and to the second drive shaft” is vague and indefinite. The claim appears to be missing a verb and fails to make clear what is being with/to “the second drive shaft”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “the effort arm of which,” “the load arm” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the lever arm is embodied as a type of inverse pendulum” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what “a type of inverse pendulum” may comprise and how the “lever arm” may be “embodied as a type of inverse pendulum” as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the lever assembly comprises an additional weight connected to the lever linkage” is vague and indefinite. The claim sets forth an “additional weight” but neither claim 4 nor claim 1 dependent thereon appears to set forth any first or initial “weight”. Thus, the claim fails to make clear both how the “weight” may be “additional” and how such an “additional weight” may be structurally related to the other claim elements.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the lever arm” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “the free end of the effort arm,” “the effort arm,” “the free end of the load arm,” “the load arm” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claims 7-19, the claims comprise numerous indefinite limitations. Applicant is advised to use the guidance provided above to clarify the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “A method for generating electricity by wind power, comprising - a vertical rotor […], - a movable lever assembly […], - an electric generator […]” is vague and indefinite. The preamble appears to require a “method” but the body of the claim sets forth structural features as is typically done in apparatus-type claims. Furthermore, the claim fails to clearly set forth any actual method steps.
Regarding claim 20, lines 3-4, the limitation “the first drive shaft being driven by the first drive shaft” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Furthermore, the limitation is self-referencing and fails to make clear how a “drive shaft” may be “driven by” itself. Applicant’s Representative(s) do not appear to have reviewed the claims prior to filing to ensure that the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought were clearly set forth.
Regarding claim 20, lines 5-6, the limitation “the lever assembly driving the second drive shaft, for which purpose the lever assembly is operatively connected to the second drive shaft” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the second drive shaft” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the phrase “for which purpose the lever assembly is operatively connected to the second drive shaft” is generally narrative and unclear. The claim fails to make clear what “purpose” may be intended—although setting forth a “purpose” would appear to simply comprise an intended use without any actual structural and/or method-based requirement(s).
Regarding claim 20, lines 7-8, the limitation “the second drive shaft being driven by the second drive shaft” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Furthermore, the limitation is self-referencing and fails to make clear how a “drive shaft” may be “driven by” itself.
Regarding claims 2-19, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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
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, 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holnberger (EP 3115603 A1, supplied by Applicant; see attached English-language translation).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Holnberger discloses a wind-powered apparatus for generating electricity, comprising:
- a vertical rotor (e.g., drive element 106 which has a vertical axis of rotation; see Fig. 3),
- a first drive shaft (e.g., primary drive shaft 107) drivable by the vertical rotor (element 106),
- a second drive shaft (e.g., generator shaft 103),
- an electric generator (electric rotary generator 102) drivable by the second drive shaft (generator shaft 103), and
- a movable lever assembly (e.g., rotation device 104),
wherein the first drive shaft (shaft 107) is operatively connected to the lever assembly for driving said assembly (see, e.g., Figs. 3, 4), and
wherein the lever assembly is operatively connected to the second drive shaft (shaft 103) for driving said shaft (see, e.g., Figs. 3, 4), and
wherein the lever assembly comprises lever linkage (e.g., drive shaft/rod 105, lever arm 109; see Figs. 3, 4) configured to be able to perform a reciprocating motion (see, e.g., ¶ 39: back and forth tilting of the drive shaft 105 between its pendulum positions 119, 120) between a first reciprocating position (e.g., first pendulum position 119) and a second reciprocating position (e.g., second pendulum position 120) without losing the operative connection to the first drive shaft (primary drive shaft 107) and to the second drive shaft (generator shaft 103).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Holnberger discloses a method for generating electricity by wind power, comprising
- a vertical rotor (e.g., drive element 106 which has a vertical axis of rotation; see Fig. 3) driving a first drive shaft (e.g., primary drive shaft 107),
- a movable lever assembly (e.g., rotation device 104) operatively connected to the first drive shaft (primary drive shaft 107),
- the lever assembly (rotation device 104) driving a second drive shaft (e.g., generator shaft 103),
- an electric generator (electric rotary generator 102) operatively connected to the second drive shaft (generator shaft 103),
wherein the lever assembly (rotation device 104) comprises lever linkage (e.g., drive shaft/rod 105, lever arm 109; see Figs. 3, 4) configured to perform a reciprocating motion (see, e.g., ¶ 39: back and forth tilting of the drive shaft 105 between its pendulum positions 119, 120) between a first reciprocating position (e.g., first pendulum position 119) and a second reciprocating position (e.g., second pendulum position 120) without losing the operative connection to the first drive shaft (primary drive shaft 107) and to the second drive shaft (generator shaft 103).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited each disclose a wind-powered apparatus using one or more lever assemblies and appear to be relevant to the claimed invention, as best as it may be understood.
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.
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.
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
September 29, 2025
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 Note, however, the associated rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) below regarding whether a method- or apparatus-type claim is intended to be recited.