DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 03/30/2026 following the Non-Final Rejection of 12/30/2025. Claim 6 was 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 03/03/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant's point on page 2 of Remarks that “Won’s Design Goal: To capture more energy by placing additional aerodynamic surfaces (inner wing plates) in the central airflow path. Its solution is increased solidity and complexity” is not found persuasive by the Examiner.
While the support plates 5 of Won do have a “wing function” in the disclosure of Won, it would be inaccurate to characterize this aspect as “Won’s Design Goal” when it is instead an aspect of their invention and the disclosure of Won should be viewed for all the aspects that make up its whole invention.
Applicant's point on page 2 of Remarks that “These are contradictory aerodynamic philosophies. A POSITA seeking to improve Won’s efficiency would be taught by Won to add structure to the center. They would have no motivation to look to Kinzie – a reference focused on solving a downstream problem created by a different type of rotor – to modify Won’s fundamentally different, upstream design”.
It is not clear why Applicant alleges that “a POSITA seeking to improve Won’s efficiency would be taught by Won to add structure to the center”. While the support plates 5 of Won perform a “wing function” the blades 7 would similarly, if not more so, perform a “wing function” or energy generation function. Other areas than just the center would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify. While it is possible that the shroud of Kinzie used to modify Won could reduce the wing function provided by the centrally located support plates 5 of Won, it would increase the interaction of air with the peripheral blades 7 of Won. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to be a tradeoff instead of teaching away from Won. Further, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the outer portions of the rotor and/or rotor blades are most important for the power generation of a wind turbine since they travel at the highest relative speed. While the support plates 5 provide a ‘wing function’, the blades 7 provide an even greater energy harvesting function given this. Thus, modifying Won to have better interaction of air at its outer periphery blades at the expense of the more central support plates would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to not be teaching away from the disclosure of Won and would instead be directing air toward more efficient/productive section of the rotor. Additionally, the modification of Won with the teachings of Kinzie would not prevent the support plates from performing their “wing function”. While the design of Won’s rotor is different from Kinzie’s, it is not so different that the teachings of Kinzie could not be applied to invention of Won. The Rotors of Won and Kinzie are both for a horizontal-axis wind turbine (HAWT).
Applicant's point on pages 2-3 of Remarks that “Won’s inner wing plates are active flow disruptors designed to extract energy, creating a turbulent core flow. Kinzie’s shroud is designed to interact with a coherent, axially directed wake from a classic rotor. Applying Kinzie’s shroud to Won’s complex flow field would yield an unpredictable result. At best, the shroud’s effect would be negated; at worst, it would increase drag and reduce Won’s efficiency. The KSR court warned against finding obviousness where the combination yields only “a predictable variation” or where there is a “finite number of identified, predictable solutions”. Here, the result is not predictable, and thus the combination is not obvious”. While the design of the rotor of Kinzie is different from Won, they are not substantially different, both being rotors of a HAWT. Given this, the teachings of Kinzie would have applicability to the invention of Won. The portion of the rotor of Kinzie which is radially within or overlapping the shroud 100 would be analogous to the inner support plates of Won given that they are both active flow disruptors designed to extract energy and the outboard areas of the rotor blades of Kinzie would be analogous to the blades 7 of Won given that they are both outboard areas of their respective rotors.
Applicant's point on page 3 of Remarks that “While Applicant disputes the Examiner’s claim construction, even under the broadest interpretation, the rejection fails for the reasons above. If every open space within a rotor is “hollow”, and every slender aerodynamic member is a “supporting rod”, then these claim terms lose all functional meaning within the context of wind turbine art. Such an interpretation is unreasonable and contravenes the principle that claims must be read in context”.
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. Applicant has the option of amending the claims to further specify or clarify their understanding or interpretation of the claim limitations. Regarding the term “hollow”, the central section of the wind turbine of Won is shown to be empty in a similar manner as what is shown in instant figs. 1-2, and 5-7 where one or more components are provided within the hollow center section of the wind turbine. The presence of the support plates 5 of Won would be similar to the support spokes of the instant invention which “could also be used to create pattern in outgoing high velocity stream of airflow” as stated in pr. 32 of the instant PGPub. Further, the claim does not require that “a center section that is hollow” be exclusively part of the rotor; it could be defined as a section that is within 0.5R. The definition of rod from Merriam-Webster is stated as “a slender bar” which the support plates 5-5”’ of Won would qualify under given there thin/slender profile in fig. 1 despite them not conforming to a more typical rod form.
Examiner Note: further references were found in the updated search which appear to disclose the structure for the “undisrupted” embodiment of the instant invention. They are described below:
KR20110036189A and RU179849U1 – disclose a wind turbine assembly, where a turbine rotor comprises a plurality of blades which are distanced from the rotation axis, the blades being supported on a main shaft of the rotor by narrow rods/beams which extend to and support an inner ring which the blades are mounted onto, the inner ring defining a relatively hollow center section radially inward therefrom (hollow in a similar manner to the instant invention) and is further absent of surfaces which are intended to interact with incoming airflow to extract energy therefrom, the main shaft of the rotor coaxial with a generator, the center section is empty enough such that air flow passing through it would be relatively undisrupted and would therefore have a higher velocity than the air flow passing though the peripheral section which has the blades.
KR20080085275A – discloses a wind turbine assembly, where a rotor comprises a plurality of blades with free ends, the plurality of blades are distanced from the rotation axis about 0.5R of the total radius R of the rotor, the blades being supported on a main shaft of the rotor by flat rods/beams which extend to and support an annular assembly which the blades are mounted onto, the annular assembly establishing a relatively hollow center section radially inward from it and is absent of surfaces which are intended to interact with incoming airflow to extract energy therefrom, the main shaft of the rotor coaxial with a generator, the center section being empty enough that air flow passing through would be relatively undisrupted and would therefore have a higher velocity than the airflow which passes through the peripheral section with the rotor blades.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 6, at the end of the newly added amendments, “or a freewheel.” Should likely read “or a freewheel[[.]];”, since the claim continues after this section.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 to 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 but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action.
Examiner Note: 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.
US 6053700 – discloses a wind turbine rotor where the blades are distanced from the rotation axis, a hollow center section is provided which can have various internal profiles such as an exit that is larger than an entrance, and vice-versa, it is stated that the profile(s) leads to a substantially increased efficiency of the turbine.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights