DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 08/11/2026 following the Final Rejection of 05/22/2024 and the Abandonment of 12/19/2024. Claims 1, 4-5, 15, 17 and 20 were amended. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13 and 15-20 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/11/2026, with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC § 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections of 05/22/2024 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/11/2026, with respect to claim objections and claims rejected under 35 USC § 112(d) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. These objections and/or rejections are maintained. Applicant has not addressed these objections and rejections in their Remarks, and the claims have not been amended to address them either. They are repeated in this Office Action below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 6 in the drawings submitted 02/05/2024 has reference number for the bypass prevention shell 114 present but the bypass prevention shell 114 appears to be missing from the figure.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of “wherein the plurality of turbine blades are angled from the turbine hub at approximately the tilt angle” and “with a lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately parallel with the existing structure, and an upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately perpendicular to the existing structure, wherein the lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily a lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine, temporarily meaning as the turbine rotates, and the upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily opposite the lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine” from claims 1, 15 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 reads “with a setback from the axis.” but should likely read “with a setback from the axis of the columnar support mount.”
Claim 16 reads “with a setback from the axis.” but should likely read “with a setback from the axis of the columnar support mount.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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, 4-9, 11-13 and 15-20 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 lines 16-17, the limitation “wherein the plurality of turbine blades are angled from the turbine hub at approximately the tilt angle” leads to the claim failing the written description requirement and is considered new matter. No support was found for this limitation in the instant disclosure as no mention in the instant specification is made. The instant drawings do not show the plurality of turbine blades being angled from the turbine hub at approximately the tilt angle nor does it display any connection between the tilt angle and the angle at which the turbine blades are angled from the hub. While there is support for the plurality of turbine blades being angled from the turbine hub (such as relative to a rotation plane of the hub), such that the plurality of turbine blades form a conical shape, this is not what is claimed. As such, this limitation fails the written description requirement since it was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed and is considered new matter.
Claims 15 and 20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for the same reason detailed above for claim 1. Claim 15 lines 21-22 and claim 20 lines 22-24 possessing the same limitation(s) and issues as claim 1 lines 16-17 cited above.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 19-28, the limitation “with a lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately parallel with the existing structure, and an upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately perpendicular to the existing structure, wherein the lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily a lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine, temporarily meaning as the turbine rotates, and the upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily opposite the lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine” leads to the claim failing the written description requirement and is considered new matter. No support was found for this limitation in the instant disclosure as no mention in the instant specification is made. The instant drawings further do not show this claimed aspect and it is not clear that the apparatus shown can have a plurality of blades which make up the lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately parallel with the existing structure given that the orientation of each blade would be different depending on where it is located on the hub. This would similarly be the case for the plurality of turbine blades which make up the upper portion of the plurality of turbine being approximately perpendicular with the existing structure. As such, this limitation fails the written description requirement since it was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed and is considered new matter.
Claims 15 and 20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for the same reason detailed above for claim 1. Claim 15 lines 23-31 and claim 20 lines 25-33 possessing the same limitation(s) and issues as claim 1 lines 16-17 cited above.
Claims 4-9 and 11-13 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Claims 16-19 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) due to their respective dependency upon claim 15 rejected above.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “wherein the shell structure is shaped to place negative pressure on a leeward side of the apparatus without generating significant turbulence” leads to the claim failing the written description requirement and is considered new matter. While there is support found for the shell structure generating a region of relatively reduced air velocity and/or air pressure on a leeward side of the shell structure (see pr. 31 of the instant specification), no support can be found for wherein the shell structure does this explicitly “without generating significant turbulence” as stated in the claim. Further, no mention can be found in the instant specification related to turbulence or shaping the shell structure to avoid generating significant turbulence. As such, this limitation fails the written description requirement since it was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed and is considered new matter.
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, 4-9, 11-13 and 15-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 line 10, Claim 15 line 16 and Claim 20 line 13: the term “little height” in the phrase “being a wind turbine having little height in the dimension of the axis” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “little height” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 16-17, the limitation “wherein the plurality of turbine blades are angled from the turbine hub at approximately the tilt angle” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted, in light of the specification, as it not discussed in the instant specification and it is unclear how the plurality of turbine blades are meant to be angled from the turbine hub at approximately the tilt angle as they could be angled by a tilt angle relative to the hub’s rotation axis or angled by a tilt angle relative to the rotation plane of the hub. The instant specification and drawings fails to provide clarity for this.
Claims 15 and 20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the same reason detailed above for claim 1. Claim 15 lines 21-22 and claim 20 lines 22-24 possessing the same limitation(s) and issues as claim 1 lines 16-17 cited above.
Regarding Claim 1 line 18, Claim 15 line 23 and Claim 20 line 25, the term “approximately” in the phrase “an approximately conical shape” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for shapes or non-value features, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 19-28, the limitation “with a lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately parallel with the existing structure, and an upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately perpendicular to the existing structure, wherein the lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily a lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine, temporarily meaning as the turbine rotates, and the upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily opposite the lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the metes and bounds for this limitation are when interpreting it in light of the specification. Since each blade of the plurality of turbine blades would define a different angular orientation depending on its circumferential location on the rotor hub, it is unclear how turbines blades of the lower portion of the plurality of turbine can be approximately parallel to the existing structure, and how turbine blades of the upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades can be approximately perpendicular to the existing structure. Further, it is unclear how this lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately parallel with the existing structure and the upper portion of plurality of turbine blades being approximately parallel with the existing structure should be defined/determined in light of the specification as there is no mention of this in the instant specification.
Claims 15 and 20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the same reason detailed above for claim 1. Claim 15 lines 23-31 and claim 20 lines 25-33 possessing the same limitation(s) and issues as claim 1 lines 16-17 cited above.
Regarding Claim 1 line 20, Claim 15 line 24 and Claim 20 line 26, the limitation “approximately parallel” renders the claim indefinite. While the instant specification in para. 22 recites that “the word “approximately” as used herein means within 5% of a stated value”, it is not clear how this would be defined in the context of “approximately parallel” since it is not clear what ‘within 5% of parallel would be, thereby making the metes and bounds of the claim uncertain.
Claims 4-9 and 11-13 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Claims 16-19 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their respective dependency upon claim 15 rejected above.
Regarding Claim 5, the term “significant” in the limitation “without generating significant turbulence” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation “wherein the turbine axis is tilted from a vertical reference by an amount of a tilt angle” renders the claim indefinite since claim 1, which claim 11 depends upon, “introduces “a tilt angle” in line 16. It is unclear if the “tilt angle” introduced in claim 11 is referencing back to the one previously introduced or is instead introducing a different and distinct one.
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 11 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the turbine axis is tilted from a vertical reference by an amount of a tilt angle, wherein the tilt angle is less than 90°” which fails to further limitation the invention of claim 1, from which claim 11 depends upon. Claim 1 lines 15-15-16 recites the limitation “wherein the turbine axis is between 1° and 45° away from vertical, being a tilt angle” which requires the turbine axis be away, i.e., tilted, from vertical by an angle between 1 degree and 45 degrees; vertical and a vertical reference would possess the same angular orientation since they are both vertical. This would be narrower in scope than the limitation of claim 11 which requires the turbine axis to have an angle of tilt from vertical of less than 90 degrees since claim 1 requires this tilt angle from vertical to be between 1° and 45°. As such, claim 11 fails to further limit claim 1.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections, and/or the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b) and/or 112(d) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1, 15 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims), no prior art was found which anticipated or rendered obvious the invention as now claimed. Particularly, “wind turbine having little height in the dimension of the axis, enclosed within the shell structure, and wherein the shallow-profile wind turbine comprises a turbine hub and a plurality of turbine blades, and the shallow-profile wind turbine rotates on a turbine axis,” and “wherein the plurality of turbine blades are angled from the turbine hub at approximately the tilt angle, such that the plurality of turbine blades form an approximately conical shape, with a lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately parallel with the existing structure, and an upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately perpendicular to the existing structure, wherein the lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily a lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine, temporarily meaning as the turbine rotates, and the upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily opposite the lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine” in context of the other limitations required by the claims. The closest prior art references were US 9909560, US 4074951, US264164, WO2012028893A2 and DE3829112A1. They disclosed of a low profile wind turbine assembly with a shell structure rotatably mounted onto a central columnar support mount, the assembly including a turbine rotor which is enclosed within the shell structure, the rotor including a turbine hub with a plurality of blades, the hub having a tilt angle that can be defined between its rotation axis and vertical, extensions of the blades being angled relative to the hub’s rotation axis or rotation plane. However, none of these references disclosed “wherein the plurality of turbine blades are angled from the turbine hub at approximately the tilt angle, such that the plurality of turbine blades form an approximately conical shape, with a lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately parallel with the existing structure, and an upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately perpendicular to the existing structure” as required by the claim. While references were found which presented turbine blades which were angled relative to a turbine hub such that the plurality of blades from an approximately conical shape; see US 4080100, US 6786697 and US 6849965. None of these references were sufficient to modify a base reference to render all the limitations obvious over the prior art of record. For example, modifying DE3829112A1 such that the turbine blades form a conical shape would still not arrive at the other limitations required by claim invention “with a lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately parallel with the existing structure, and an upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades being approximately perpendicular to the existing structure, wherein the lower portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily a lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine, temporarily meaning as the turbine rotates, and the upper portion of the plurality of turbine blades comprises the turbine blades that are temporarily opposite the lower part of the shallow-profile wind turbine”. As such, the claims are deemed to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0255190 – discloses a wind turbine assembly where the bottom portion of the rotor assembly is covered by a shell structure.
US 11319929 – discloses a ducted wind turbine where the turbine hub is orientated in a similar manner to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
