DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office Action is in response to the claims set filed 11/30/2025 following the Final Rejection of 06/03/2025 and the Advisory Action of 09/15/2025. Claims 2-3 and 6 were amended. Claims 1-6 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 11/30/2025, with respect to claim objections and claims rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections and rejections of 09/15/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/30/2025, with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See Examiner responses to Applicant's arguments below.
Applicant's point on page 5 of Remarks that Won fails to disclose blades positioned at a distance from a center of rotation that are connected to a turbine rotor shaft by supporting rods and that regarding Won, “a "wing plate" with a "predetermined angle of attack" that functions to "convert incoming winds into more energies" is, by definition, a blade. It is not a hollow, pass through section”, is not found persuasive by the Examiner.
The wing plates of Won are analogous to “supporting rods” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. This is supported by the definition of rod from Merriam-Webster which is stated as “a slender bar” which the support plates 5-5”’ would qualify under given there thin/slender profile in fig. 1. Applicant's point that the wing plates of Won are capable of carrying out a wing function, and thus should not be interpreted as rods, is not found persuasive since this aspect would not prevent them from being interpreted as rods. For example, US 2012/0257969 discloses inner blades 120A to 120D which are also fluid reactive members but can similarly be interpreted as supporting rods as well. Additionally, this point by Applicant runs counter to the section in pr. 32 of the instant published application which stated that “the supporting rods (or spokes), in turn, could also be used to create pattern in outgoing high velocity stream of airflow”. Applicant's interpretation of hollow is more limited than what is a broadest reasonable interpretation. Merriam-Webster defines hollow as “having an unfilled or hollowed-out space within”. As shown in fig. 1 of Won, a center section defined as radially within the ring is shown to be unfilled (i.e. not filled), with a structure “allowing incoming airflow to pass through” as required by the claim.
Applicant's point on page 6 of Remarks that “a skilled person, consulting Won for Guidance, would be taught to add structure to the center, not to remove it to create a hollow, pass-through section” is not found persuasive by the Examiner.
In the combination of Won in view of Kinzie. Won is not being modified to remove structure to create a hollow, the disclosure of Won already presents a hollow, interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation, as stated above. Thus, Applicant's arguments related to the combination of Won and Kinzie teaching away from Won is not found persuasive. The center section of Won is not only provided at the rotor, but extends forward and rear of it as it is defined as being radially inward of the ring in the rejection below.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed invention’s core is a hollow center section which is an integral part of the rotor itself” on page 6 of Remarks and “Applicant's pre-rotor entrainment via a hollow center” on page 7 of Remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's point on pages 6-7 of Remarks that “Kinzie fails to teaches of generating a lower pressure area behind the wind turbine” and “in fact, create[s] a higher pressure area behind the turbine, not a lower one” is not found persuasive by the Examiner.
While it is true that the shroud of Kinzie creates a higher pressure area behind the turbine rotor, it is also true that a relatively lower pressure area is created as well. This is due to the shape and form of the shroud where a suction or exterior side of the shroud would have a lower pressure area adjacent there, which is behind the turbine. The outlet of the shroud of Kinzie would have a higher pressure area which means that areas radially outward from the outlet would be a relatively lower pressure area. Thus, allowing an entrainment effect. The claim requires “creating a lower pressure area behind the wind turbine” not that “no higher pressure areas exist behind the wind turbine”.
Applicant's point on page 7 of Remarks that “the claim is for a wind turbine, an aerodynamic device. In this context, a skilled person would understand "hollow center section" to mean an airflow passage designed to permit the through-flow of air with minimal disruption to achieve an aerodynamic purpose” is not found persuasive by the Examiner. Claim limitations are interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant's interpretation of how a hollow center section should be interpreted is narrower than this standard. See MPEP 2111 for more details.
Applicant's point on page 8 against the modification of Won with the teachings of Kinzie were not found persuasive by the Examiner.
The modification of Won with the teachings of Kinzie would not remove structure or teach away from Won, see Examiner’s previous points above. Kinzie’s rationale of increasing the amount of airflow at the outboard end of the wind turbine blades or rotor is readily applicable to the rotor of Won given that the blades of Won are located on the radially outboard portion of the rotor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2008002016A1, herein referenced as Won, in view of US 2012/0141250, herein referenced as Kinzie.
PNG
media_image1.png
731
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Won
Regarding Claim 1, Won discloses wind turbine, having design features that increase efficiency, comprising:
a turbine rotor (see rotor for blades 7, 7', 7", 7"', 7"", 7””’ in fig. 1, includes components such as ring 6 and support plates 5’,5”,5”’,5””), which comprises blades set at fixed or adjustable angle to a plane of rotation (see plane of rotation for blades in fig. 1), the blades having fixed or adjustable angle of attack and are positioned at a distance from a center of rotation (the rotor blades 7-7””’ shown to be positioned away from the rotational center 3 in fig. 1) extending between 0.25R to 1R of a range of a total turbine rotor radius (R) (the blades 7-7””’ are shown to be comfortably in a range between 0.25R to 1R of the total rotor radius in fig. 1), the blades are connected to a turbine rotor shaft (rotational axis pipe 4 fig. 1) by supporting rods (see fixed support plates 5-5”’ in fig. 1 which would be analogous to support rods; “Merriam-Webster provides a definition of rod as “a slender bar” which the support plates 5-5”’ would qualify as since they are thin/slender bars as shown in fig. 1) to hold the blades away from the turbine rotor shaft at the center of rotation (3 fig. 1), having the horizontal axis of rotation perpendicular to the plane of rotation (shown in fig. 1);
a center section that is hollow (a center section defined as radially inward from ring 6 in fig. 1, includes areas forward and aft of the rotor; this section is considered hollow as it is unfilled as is evident by the ability for air to pass through this center section), with the blades extending outwards from the center section (see blades 7-7””’ which extend outward from the interior of ring 6 in fig. 1), allowing incoming airflow to pass through the center section (center section defined as radially inward from ring 6 is shown to allow incoming airflow to pass there through in fig. 1);
an electrical generator (see generator body 2 fig. 1) mounted coaxially with the turbine rotor shaft (generator body 2 shown to be coaxial to rotor pipe 4 in fig. 1) in the same or different plane of rotation (shown in fig. 1) configured to be driven by the turbine rotor directly or the turbine rotor shaft directly (rotor pipe 4 shown to be directly connected with generator body 2 in fig. 1) or via a multiplier or a gearbox or a freewheel.
However, Won fails to explicitly anticipate creating a lower pressure area behind the wind turbine, allowing an entrainment effect to maintain a higher speed of air flow through the blades, thus creating more lift on the blades than in a classic configure of a wind turbine that has blades extending directly from the rotor shaft.
Won and Kinzie are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of wind turbines.
PNG
media_image2.png
591
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Kinzie
Kinzie teaches of a center section that is hollow (A center section defined by inner diameter 104 in fig. 2; this section is shown to be hollow in fig. 2 as it is unfilled within the inner diameter 104 such that air is able to pass through; Merriam-Webster defines hollow as “having an unfilled or hollowed-out space within”; the shroud 100 can be at various positions such as over the tower 12 as shown in figs. 1 and 3), with the blades extending outwards from the center section (blades 16 shown to extend outward from the inner diameter 104 fig. 2), allowing incoming airflow to pass through the center section (incoming airflow would be able to pass through 104 in fig. 2), creating a lower pressure area behind the wind turbine (the shroud 100 would have more airflow passing through the blades due to a lower pressure area behind the wind turbine created by the shroud 100 in fig. 2, This is because the shroud would produce a high pressure area at its outlet and downstream therefrom, which would create relatively lower pressure areas radially surrounding the outlet of the shroud and the shroud itself, specifically downstream of the rotor and outside of the inner diameter 104 in fig. 4), allowing an entrainment effect to maintain a higher speed of air flow through the blades (“The shroud 100 in this configuration directs air flow to the outside of the shroud 100, such that less, slower air is passing through the shroud 100. However, because the air flow is directed outside of the shroud 100, an increased amount of air may pass by the outboard areas 54 of the rotor blades 16” pr. 37; this increased amount of air passing by the outboard areas 54 of the blades would be due to the entrainment effect produced by the shroud 100 in fig. 2), thus creating more lift on the blades than in a classic configure of a wind turbine that has blades extending directly from the rotor shaft (“Because the outboard area 54 is typically more efficient at interacting with air than the inboard area 52, such increased interaction of air with the outboard areas 54 may increase efficiency and power coefficient and thus the performance of the wind turbine 10” pr. 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Won with the shroud attached the nacelle and aft the rotor as disclosed by Kinzie so as to obtain the benefit of ‘increasing amount of air passing through the outboard areas of the rotor blades, thereby increasing performance of the wind turbine’ as taught by Kinzie.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Won and Kinzie comprises a method of increasing a wind turbine efficiency of extracting energy from an incoming airflow by using the wind turbine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above with combination of Won in view of Kinzie), comprising positioning the wind turbine to receive wind through the turbine rotor and center section (see center section defined by ring 6 of Won; Won being modified by the teaches of Kinzie above).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Won and Kinzie as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 4080100, herein referenced as McNeese.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Won and Kinzie comprises the method of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the turbine rotor blades are angled to a plane of rotation, swept downwind or upwind, thus allowing for longer blades to be used in the same swept area to harness more energy, as opposed to conventional straight blades that are perpendicular to the horizontal axis of rotation and connected directly to the turbine rotor shaft.
McNeese are analogous art is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbines.
McNeese teaches wherein the turbine rotor blades (see blades 26,27,28 in fig. 2) are angled to a plane of rotation, swept downwind (blades in fig. 2 are shown to be swept downwind relative to airflow A in fig. 2) or upwind, thus allowing for longer blades to be used in the same swept area to harness more energy (shown in fig. 2), as opposed to conventional straight blades that are perpendicular to the horizontal axis of rotation and connected directly to the turbine rotor shaft. McNeese further teaches that “since the blades are angled back at approximately 10° in their outer portion, air from the center tends to flow outwardly along the blades, thus becoming extremely turbulent as it mixes with the air flowing straight in. Air therefore is directed to the area furthest away from the center hub where it will produce the greatest power before passing through the blades” in col. 5 lines 2-7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rotor blades in the combination of Won and Kinzie to be angled/swept downwind as disclosed by McNeese so as to obtain the benefit of ‘directing air to the area furthest away from the center hub where it will produce the greatest power before passing through the blades’ as taught by McNeese.
The combination of above would allow for longer blades to be used in the same swept area to harness more energy (relative to blades which are purely vertical), as opposed to conventional straight blades that are perpendicular to the axis of rotation and connected directly to a turbine rotor shaft (angled blades would allow for create blade lengths than purely vertical blades).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, and its dependent claims 2-3, see rationale provided in the Office Action of 06/03/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GB2512567A – discloses a wind turbine where the wind turbine includes an accelerating ring is provided aft of the rotor so to accelerate fluid vortex behind turbine rotor or rotors blades and, by means of rings vertical stabilizers, stabilize and corrects turbulent fluid movement behind blades and thus make flow of fluid trough turbine blades much easier and faster.
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