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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 04/18/2026 and 02/18/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-20 are pending:
Claims 5-7, 9-10, 13-15 are withdrawn
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-12, 16-20 are examined on the merits
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 102 art rejection by Zambrano (US 7,084,520) and to 35 USC 103 art rejections based on Zambrano (US 7,084,520), Tang (US 9,133,822), Shimizu (US 2015/0252774), and Carr (US 10,138,872) have been fully considered.
The office notes that no new arguments have been provided relative to the response of the Advisory Action dated 03/03/2026 and that no new amendments have been provided relative to the claim set examined in the Final Rejection dated 12/18/2025. As the RCE entered the response dated 02/18/2026 (which was responded to in the Advisory Action dated 03/03/2026), the below response is a duplication of the response to arguments provided in the prior Advisory Action.
Applicant asserts, page 7-8, that Zambrano fails to disclose the generator mounted above the lower airfoil.
The office respectfully disagrees, see Fig1/3 generator 12 is mounted above fairing 38.
Applicant asserts, page 8-9, that fairing 38 does not extend over the building edge and asserts that only attachment 26 extends over the building edge.
The office respectfully disagrees, see Fig4, hidden lines show arrangement of fairing 38 extend over the building edge.
Applicant assertions, page 9-10, directed towards embodiment 2 of Fig5 is moot due to the rejection of record not relying upon embodiment 2 of Fig5.
Applicant asserts, page 11, that Zambrano fails to disclose the front/middle/rear surfaces of the lower airfoil.
The office respectfully disagrees, see Fig3/9, fairing 38 forms airflow surfaces along the bottom of the arrangement that extends across the front/middle/rear of the airflow arrangement.
Applicant asserts, page 11, that the structure of Zambrano is significantly different from the claimed invention.
The office respectfully disagrees, but notes that there are structural differences between Zambrano and Applicant disclosed arrangement - however this differences are not present in the claim language.
Claim Interpretation - Language
Language and/or terms in the claims are interpreted as follows:
“closed gap” is interpreted in light of Fig2a and Para21 to mean that the gap below the lower airfoil is “closed” in the sense that air does not pass through.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zambrano (US 7,084,520).
Claim 1
Zambrano discloses:
“A wind direction system (best seen Fig3/9/11), the wind direction system comprising:
at least one lower airfoil (fairing 38) having a leading edge, front surface, middle surface, rear surface, and trailing edge (surface sub-sections best seen Fig3/9),
wherein the at least one lower airfoil is mounted to a building surface (Fig4, attachment 26),
wherein the leading edge and the front surface extend over a building edge (best seen Fig3/4/9) formed between a front building surface (Fig3/4/9, front surface of wall 16) and an upper building surface (Fig3/4/9, top surface of wall 16),
wherein the upper building surface is located above a majority of the front building surface (best seen Fig4),
wherein the front surface of the at least one lower airfoil is angled into an airflow relative to the middle surface (best seen Fig3/4, see curve of fairing 38); and at least one wind turbine mounted above the at least one lower airfoil (generator 12).”
Claim 2
Zambrano discloses: “The system of claim 1, wherein a closed gap extends between the leading edge and the front surface of the building (Fig4, space between fairing 38 and arm 25 on front of wall 16).”
Claim 3
Zambrano discloses: “The system of claim 1, wherein the leading edge is located in contact with the front surface of the building (Fig4, leading edge of fairing 38 in contact with front of wall 16 via body of fairing 38).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 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.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambrano (US 7,084,520) in view of Tang (US 9,133,822).
Claim 4
Zambrano discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
Zambrano is silent to “wherein the rear surface of the at least one lower airfoil extends at a downward angle relative to the middle surface.”
Tang teaches (Fig3-4) a fan 2 generator 3 within an airfoil shroud with lower airfoils 44a/b and upper airfoils 41a/b. The rear surface of lower airfoil 41a/b (based on airflow direction) extends downwards relative to the middle surface region near reference character 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Zambrano to perform a simple substitution of the generator and fairing of Zambrano for the generator and airfoil shroud as taught by Tang, as such a modification would merely be the simple substitution of one known in the art roof wind turbine mounted arrangement for another, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Zambrano with a known in the art wind turbine arrangement with upper and lower airfoil shrouding.
Claim 8
Zambrano discloses the arrangement of Claim 1
Zambrano is silent to “wherein the at least one wind turbine is at least one crossflow wind turbine, wherein the axis of rotation of the at least one crossflow wind turbine extends parallel to the upper building surface and perpendicular to the direction of airflow.”
Tang teaches (Fig3-4) a fan 2 generator 3 within an airfoil shroud with lower airfoils 44a/b and upper airfoils 41a/b. The axis of rotation of the wind turbine is parallel to the roof ridge line and perpendicular to the direction of airflow.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Zambrano to perform a simple substitution of the generator and fairing of Zambrano for the generator and airfoil shroud as taught by Tang, as such a modification would merely be the simple substitution of one known in the art roof wind turbine mounted arrangement for another, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Zambrano with a known in the art wind turbine arrangement with upper and lower airfoil shrouding and the axis of rotation as claimed.
Claim 12
Zambrano discloses:
“A wind direction system (best seen Fig3/9/11), the wind direction system comprising:
at least one lower airfoil (fairing 38) having a leading edge, front surface, middle surface, rear surface, and trailing edge (surface sub-sections best seen Fig3/9),
wherein the at least one lower airfoil is mounted to a building surface (Fig4, attachment 26),
wherein the leading edge and the front surface extend over a building edge (best seen Fig3/4/9) formed between a front building surface (Fig3/4/9, front surface of wall 16) and an upper building surface (Fig3/4/9, top surface of wall 16),
wherein the upper building surface is located above a majority of the front building surface (best seen Fig4),
wherein the front surface of the at least one lower airfoil is angled into an airflow relative to the middle surface (best seen Fig3/4, see curve of fairing 38);
… ; and
at least one wind turbine mounted between the at least one lower airfoil (generator 12) and ….”
Zambrano is silent to an upper airfoil.
Tang teaches (Fig3-4) a fan 2 generator 3 within an airfoil shroud with lower airfoils 44a/b and upper airfoils 41a/b. The rear surface of lower airfoil 41a/b (based on airflow direction) extends downwards relative to the middle surface region near reference character 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Zambrano to perform a simple substitution of the generator and fairing of Zambrano for the generator and airfoil shroud as taught by Tang, as such a modification would merely be the simple substitution of one known in the art roof wind turbine mounted arrangement for another, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Zambrano with a known in the art wind turbine arrangement with upper and lower airfoil shrouding.
Claim 16
The combination of Zambrano and Tang discloses: “The system of claim 12, wherein a back surface of the at least one upper airfoil extends at an upward angle relative to a central surface of the at least one upper airfoil (Tang: Fig4a, aft surface of panel 41b/a near label 41a extend upwards relative to central surface near label 21).”
Claim 18
Zambrano discloses:
“A wind direction system (best seen Fig3/9/11), the wind direction system comprising:
at least one lower airfoil (fairing 38) having a leading edge, front surface, middle surface, rear surface, and trailing edge (surface sub-sections best seen Fig3/9),
wherein the at least one lower airfoil is mounted to a building surface (Fig4, attachment 26),
wherein the leading edge and the front surface extend over a building edge (best seen Fig3/4/9) formed between a front building surface (Fig3/4/9, front surface of wall 16) and an upper building surface (Fig3/4/9, top surface of wall 16),
wherein the upper building surface is located above a majority of the front building surface (best seen Fig4),
wherein the front surface of the at least one lower airfoil is angled into an airflow relative to the middle surface (best seen Fig3/4, see curve of fairing 38),
…
at least one wind turbine mounted above the at least one lower airfoil (rotor 18) and
at least one powertrain assembly operably connected to the at least one wind turbine (generator 12).”
Zambrano is silent to the rear surface of the lower airfoil extending as claimed
Tang teaches (Fig3-4) a fan 2 generator 3 within an airfoil shroud with lower airfoils 44a/b and upper airfoils 41a/b. The rear surface of lower airfoil 41a/b (based on airflow direction) extends downwards relative to the middle surface region near reference character 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Zambrano to perform a simple substitution of the generator and fairing of Zambrano for the generator and airfoil shroud as taught by Tang, as such a modification would merely be the simple substitution of one known in the art roof wind turbine mounted arrangement for another, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Zambrano with a known in the art wind turbine arrangement with upper and lower airfoil shrouding.
Claim 20
The combination of Zambrano and Tang discloses: “The system of claim 18, further comprising at least one upper airfoil mounted above the at least one lower airfoil (Tang: Fig3/4a, panel 41b/a).”
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambrano (US 7,084,520) in view of Shimizu (US 2015/0252774).
Claim 11
Zambrano discloses the arrangement of claim 1.
Zambrano is silent to the application of a recirculating airfoil on a rearward portion of the lower airfoil.
Shimizu teaches “… a recirculating airfoil extending rearward from a location behind a (rear/back) surface of the at least one (lower/upper) airfoil (Fig7, plate 98; Para263, that the application of a rearward curved plate that extends rear/backward [see relative positioning due to fluid flow arrows] from a location behind the rear/back surface of the lower/upper guiding fluid foils 51/32, which provides the benefit of recirculating the fluid flow to better track the aft end of the turbine region on the upper and/or lower plates. While Shimizu teaches its structure in the context of water as the working fluid; Shimizu teaches (Para5) that the technical issues of power generation using water or wind as the working fluid has technical consideration overlap.).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Zambrano to add rear/backward curved recirculating plates as taught by Shimizu, as Shimizu teaches that the application of a rearward curved plate provides the benefit of recirculating the fluid flow to better track the aft end of the turbine region on the upper and/or lower plates, and such a combination has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Zambrano with efficiency due to increased working fluid circulation on the turbine.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambrano (US 7,084,520) in view of Tang (US 9,133,822) and in further view of Shimizu (US 2015/0252774).
Claim 17
The combination of Zambrano and Tang discloses the arrangement of claim 12.
The combination of Zambrano and Tang is silent to the application of a recirculating airfoil on a rearward portion of either the lower or upper airfoil.
Shimizu teaches “… a recirculating airfoil extending rearward from a location behind a (rear/back) surface of the at least one (lower/upper) airfoil (Fig7, plate 98; Para263, that the application of a rearward curved plate that extends rear/backward [see relative positioning due to fluid flow arrows] from a location behind the rear/back surface of the lower/upper guiding fluid foils 51/32, which provides the benefit of recirculating the fluid flow to better track the aft end of the turbine region on the upper and/or lower plates. While Shimizu teaches its structure in the context of water as the working fluid; Shimizu teaches (Para5) that the technical issues of power generation using water or wind as the working fluid has technical consideration overlap.).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the combination of Zambrano and Tang to add rear/backward curved recirculating plates as taught by Shimizu, as Shimizu teaches that the application of a rearward curved plate provides the benefit of recirculating the fluid flow to better track the aft end of the turbine region on the upper and/or lower plates, and such a combination has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of the combination of Zambrano and Tang with efficiency due to increased working fluid circulation on the turbine.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambrano (US 7,084,520) in view of Tang (US 9,133,822) and in further view of Carr (US 10,138,872).
Claim 19
The combination of Zambrano and Tang, as applied in Claim 18 above, discloses: “The system of claim 18, wherein the powertrain comprises at least one industrial motor operably connected to the at least one wind turbine (Tang: Fig3/4, generator 3 connected to fan wheel 2), …”
The combination of Zambrano and Tang is silent to the application of a variable frequency drive (VFD) with an inverter.
Carr teaches “… at least one variable frequency drive (VFD) operably connected to the at least one industrial motor, and a single inverter operably connected to the at least one VFD (Fig4, C7L23-42, that it is known in the art to use a variable frequency drive (VFD) with an inverter electrically and physically between a wind turbine generator input shaft and the grid bus to improve electrical connection to the grid, for example to minimize DC voltage variation).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the combination of Zambrano and Tang to include the VFD with inverter arrangement as taught by Carr, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection as the arrangement of the combination of Zambrano and Tang is silent to any grid interaction, and Carr teaches that its VFD with inverter arrangement is known in the art and provides the advantage of improved electrical connection to the grid, and such a combination has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of the combination of Zambrano and Tang with an improved grid connection.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights