DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed 29 May 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 June 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is hereby considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “Y16” (Figure 1), “6” (Figure 3), “34” (Figures 4 and 5B).
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to for the following informalities:
-reference character “180” in Figure 7 does not identify a bulb casing.
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. 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 20-27 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, line 1, “supplying means” should be changed to --means for supplying-- (to use consistent terminology).
In claim 21, line 1, “evacuating means” should be changed to --means for evacuating-- (to use consistent terminology).
In claim 22, line 1, “evacuating means” should be changed to --means for evacuating-- ((to use consistent terminology).
In claim 23, line 1, “supply means” should be changed to --means for supplying-- (to use consistent terminology).
In claim 25, line 1, “supplying means” should be changed to --means for supplying-- (to use consistent terminology).
In claim 26, line 1, “supplying means” should be changed to --means for supplying-- (to use consistent terminology).
In claim 27, line 3, --using the means for generating dry air-- should be added after “air” (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 27, line 4, --using the means for supplying-- should be added after “air” (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 27, last line, --using the means for evacuating-- should be added after “hub” (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 30, line 2, “the flow of dry air is supplied to the turbine through” should be changed to --the means for supplying comprises-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 30, line 4, “the air is evacuated out of the turbine through” should be changed to --the means for evacuating comprises-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 30, last line, “is evacuated through” should be deleted (in response to the above change).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) except as otherwise indicated in this 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) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
Claim limitations “means for generating dry air” (claim 16), “means for supplying the turbine with a flow of the dry air” (claim 16), “means for evacuating air out of the turbine” (claim 16), “means to monitor or measure humidity” (claim 17) have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use “means” / “step for” with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 25, the limitation recited as “the supplying means comprises a tank” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The originally filed disclosure is silent as to any tank associated with supplying means 12 - rather, the only disclosed tank (i.e., tank 40) is associated with means for generating dry air (see pg.7:ll.25-26). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “the supplying means” to --the means for generating dry air--.
In claim 26, the limitation recited as “the supplying means comprises an air dryer” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The originally filed disclosure is silent as to any air dryer associated with supplying means 12 - rather, the only air dryer (i.e., dryer 44) is associated with means for generating dry air (see pg.7:ll.25-27). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “the supplying means” to --the means for generating dry air--.
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.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 25, the limitation recited as “the supplying means comprises a tank” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. The originally filed disclosure indicates that the only disclosed tank (i.e., tank 40) is associated with means for generating dry air (see pg.7:ll.25-26), not supplying means 12. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “the supplying means” to --the means for generating dry air--.
In claim 26, the limitation recited as “the supplying means comprises an air dryer” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. The originally filed disclosure indicates that the only disclosed air dryer (i.e., dryer 44) is associated with means for generating dry air (see pg.7:ll.25-27), not supplying means 12. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “the supplying means” to --the means for generating dry air--.
Examiner’s Comment / Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19, 28, and 29 are allowed.
Claims 20-24, 27, and 30 would be allowable if amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations that includes “means for generating dry air” (claim 16).
The closest prior art references are considered to be FR 1017514 A (cited in an IDS) and GB 986797 (cited in an IDS), both of which disclose hydraulic turbines comprising means for supplying air (FR - 2; GB - 10& 4) and means for evacuating air (FR - 7; GB - 5 & 6), but are deficient with respect to the limitation recited as “means for generating dry air” (note: the corresponding structure of this 112(f) limitation is deemed include at least a heater, as in Applicant’s disclosed heater 44). Furthermore, there is no evidence found to modify the prior art to include this limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 25 and 26 would be allowable if amended (as suggested above) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
All cited references disclose a hydraulic turbine having means for supplying air to the rotor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights