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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2026 regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, and 12-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Applicant argues that the skilled artisan would not modify the airfoils of 1Gen to have the symmetrical shape of Rombach because 1Gen teaches away from utilizing Rombach as the curve of the airfoils of 1Gen directs the air towards the blades, whereas the straight airfoils of Rombach would position the air in a less favorable direction. However, as Rombach teaches in paragraph 0006, the profile of the airfoils of Rombach increase drive, presumably by increasing the pressure of the air leaving the airfoils. It is well within routine skill in the art to realize the angle the airfoils must be positioned in order to effectively drive the blades. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
For example, though not required for the rejection below, Fig. 1c of Bae (US 9,512,815) teaches straight airfoils 6a at a favorable angle to drive blades 5.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 15 has overcome the rejections of the previous Office Action.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-14, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 1GEN LTD (“1Gen”; WO 20161/059439 A1), in view of Rombach (DE 3130507 A1, original document included on IDS of 12/23/2023, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1: 1Gen discloses a vertical axis wind turbine (Title) comprising a nozzle (Fig. 3, any two adjacent blades 14), the nozzle comprising:
a first airfoil comprising a first airfoil leading edge and a first airfoil trailing edge (Fig. 3, any one blade 14 with outer leading edge and inner trailing edge); and
a second airfoil comprising a second airfoil leading edge and a second airfoil trailing edge (an adjacent blade 14 to previously disclosed first airfoil with outer leading edge and inner trailing edge);
wherein the nozzle defines:
an inlet area disposed between the first airfoil leading edge and the second airfoil leading edge (as seen in Fig. 1, 3, inlet between the two adjacent selected blades 14); and
an exit area disposed between the first airfoil trailing edge and the second airfoil trailing edge (as seen in Fig. 1, 3, exit area between the two adjacent selected blades 14), wherein the exit area is smaller than the inlet area (as seen in Fig. 1, 3, exit area between the two adjacent selected blades 14 is smaller than inlet.
1Gen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first airfoil has a substantially symmetric airfoil shape about a mean chamber line that extends through the center of the first airfoil from the first airfoil leading edge to the first airfoil trailing edge and wherein the inlet area extends between the first airfoil leading edge and the second airfoil leading edge along a plane transverse to a rotation direction of the vertical axis wind turbine.
However, Rombach discloses wherein the first airfoil (10) has a substantially symmetric airfoil shape about a mean chamber line that extends through the center of the first airfoil from the first airfoil leading edge to the first airfoil trailing edge (8, shown in Fig. 3), and
wherein the inlet area extends between the first airfoil leading edge and the second airfoil leading edge along a plane transverse to a rotation direction of the vertical axis wind turbine (as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the airfoils of 1Gen to have the symmetry of the airfoils of Rombach in order to better deflect the air when compared to the curved design of 1Gen (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 3: 1Gen discloses the first airfoil has a non-zero chamber (Fig. 1, 3 regarding non-zero chamber of blades 14; wherein the chamber is defined as the distance between a chord extending in a straight line from leading edge to trailing edge, and a curved line extending along the middle of the airfoil from leading edge to trailing edge).
Regarding claim 4: 1Gen discloses the first airfoil defines a first airfoil chord line (inherent); and
the first airfoil has an inner surface substantially aligned with the first airfoil chord line (as it is “substantially” aligned, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5: 1Gen discloses the second airfoil is shaped substantially the same as the first airfoil (Fig. 1, 3 regarding all blades 14 are shaped substantially the same).
Regarding claim 6: 1Gen the nozzle is configured to be operatively coupled to a rotational shaft (26) of the vertical axis wind turbine (via 22 to shaft 26).
Regarding Claim 7: 1Gen discloses the nozzle is configured to be rotationally fixed to a rotational shaft of the vertical axis wind turbine, such that the rotational shaft is rotated upon rotation of the nozzle (as in Fig. 1-3 regarding blades 14, shaft 26, the purpose of the blades is to rotate the shaft).
Regarding claim 9: 1Gen discloses the nozzle is operable to rotate a rotational shaft (as 14 drives the rotor).
Regarding claim 10: 1Gen discloses a vertical axis wind turbine (Title) comprising:
a rotational shaft (as in Fig. 1-3 regarding shaft 26); and
a first nozzle (Fig. 3 regarding any two adjacent blades 14) operatively coupled to the rotational shaft (via 22), the first nozzle comprising:
a first airfoil comprising a first airfoil leading edge and a first airfoil trailing edge (Fig. 3 regarding any one blade 14 with outer leading edge and inner trailing edge); and
a second airfoil comprising a second airfoil leading edge and a second airfoil trailing edge (Fig. 3 regarding adjacent blade 14 to previously disclosed first airfoil with outer leading edge and inner trailing edge), wherein the first nozzle defines:
an inlet area disposed between the first airfoil leading edge and the second airfoil leading edge (as seen in Fig. 3, inlet between the two adjacent selected blades 14); and
an exit area disposed between the first airfoil trailing edge and the second airfoil trailing edge (as seen in Fig. 3, exit area between the two adjacent selected blades 14), wherein the exit area is smaller than the inlet area (as seen in Fig. 3, exit area between the two adjacent selected blades 4 is smaller than inlet), and wherein the inlet area is oriented normal to a rotation direction of the vertical axis wind turbine (as shown in Fig. 1).
1Gen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first airfoil and the second airfoil are substantially reflectively symmetric relative to each other.
However, Rombach discloses the first airfoil (6, Fig. 3) and the second airfoil (also 7) are substantially reflectively symmetric relative to each other (across 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the airfoils of 1Gen to be the dual, symmetrical airfoils of Rombach in order to better deflect the air when compared to the curved design of 1Gen (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 12: 1Gen discloses a second nozzle operatively coupled to the rotational shaft and a third nozzle operatively coupled to the rotational shaft (Fig. 3 regarding further comprising three pairs of blades 14).
Regarding claim 13: 1Gen discloses the first nozzle, the second nozzle, and the third nozzle are equally spaced about the rotational shaft (Fig. 3 regarding equal spacing of all blades 14).
Regarding claim 14: 1Gen discloses the first nozzle, the second nozzle, and the third nozzle generate a combined resulting force when the vertical axis wind turbine is subjected to wind, wherein the combined resulting force is greater than a threshold force required to rotate the rotational shaft (as the rotor is rotated when wind is imparted on the blades 14).
Regarding claim 22: 1Gen modified by Rombach discloses the symmetric airfoil shape, Rombach further discloses the first airfoil extends in a vertical direction (Fig. 2), the substantially symmetric airfoil shape of the first airfoil being uniform along the vertical direction (along 8, Fig. 3, which extends in the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 23: 1Gen modified by Rombach discloses the symmetric airfoil shape, Rombach further discloses the first airfoil extends in a vertical direction (Fig. 2), the substantially symmetric airfoil shape of the first airfoil being uniform along the vertical direction (along 8, Fig. 3, which extends in the vertical direction).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 17-18, and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the turbine of claim 15, specifically comprising:
wherein the nozzle support structure is actuated and is configured to rotate the ring to a position for directing the wind from the nozzle toward the rotating airfoil, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights