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 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that since 1Gen teaches the blades have a concave and convex side, it teaches away from the symmetric airfoil shape with the leading-edge shapes as required by the claim. However, the teaching of Rombach is used to modify the blades. Thus, Rombach improves upon the shape of the blade of 1Gen. Rombach teaches in paragraph 0006, “Contrary to popular belief, this drive is not achieved by an air flow directed towards the curved parts of the profile, but by an air flow directed towards the profile tips.” Thus, Rombach even acknowledges the shortfalls of curved blades and teaches an improvement. So, when the blades of 1Gen are modified to be the improved blades of Rombach, the blade shape of 1Gen is no longer relevant.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant has a similar argument as claim 1 regarding 1Gen teaching the symmetric airfoil shape. As stated above, Rombach is cited to teach the claimed blade shape.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that Zapata Martinez does not explicitly disclose the airfoil trailing edge being narrower than the leading edge, stating that Zapata Martinez actually teaches the opposite- the leading edge being narrower than the trailing edge. However, “leading” and “trailing” edge are not defined in the claim. One can interpret that the inner edges of the airfoils of Zapata Martinez will contact the wind first, and thus, are the leading edges. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Further, it is worth pointing out that Rombach, Valsamidis, and Monto (US 2020/0040870) all teach airfoils with the claimed leading and trailing edges. Even more so, it is well known that an airfoil with a trailing edge narrower than the leading edge is beneficial for generating lift. This is shown in the wind turbine blades of Leong et al. (US 2021/0231108) and wings on airplanes. Thus, it could be beneficial to consider this if considering to pursue this limitation further.
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, and 12-14 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).
Claims 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 1Gen, in view of Valsamidis (US 5,380,149) and Appa (US 2015/0159628) and Zapata Martinez (US 4,236,866).
Regarding claim 15: 1Gen discloses a vertical axis wind turbine (Title) comprising:
a rotational shaft (as in Fig. 1-3 regarding shaft 26);
a rotating airfoil (12,13, 14) operatively coupled to the rotational shaft (Fig. 3, via 22); and
a ring (2,3) disposed radially outward of the rotating airfoil (Fig. 3), and
a nozzle (adjacent blades 4) fixedly coupled to the ring, the nozzle comprising:
a first airfoil comprising a first airfoil leading edge and a first airfoil trailing edge (Fig. 1, 3 regarding any one blade 4 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. 1, 3 regarding adjacent blade 4 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 4); 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 4), wherein the exit area is smaller than the inlet area (as seen in Fig. 1, 3, exit area between the two adjacent selected blades 4 is smaller than inlet area also defined by the outer and inner circumference of the stator rings 2, 3 as seen in Fig. 1 where since the blades 4 are evenly spaced, the exit area is axiomatically smaller than the inlet area).
1Gen does not explicitly disclose wherein the ring is rotatable relative to the rotational shaft such that the ring may be rotated at a different speed than the rotation shaft, and wherein the nozzle is operable to rotate the rotational shaft by directing wind toward the rotating airfoil, and a second rotating airfoil operatively coupled to the rotational shaft, wherein each of the first rotating airfoil and the second rotating airfoil including a leading edge and a trailing edge, the leading edge of the second rotating airfoil being rotationally aligned and spaced from the trailing edge of the first rotating airfoil and the first airfoil trailing edge that is narrower than the first airfoil leading edge; and the second airfoil trailing edge that is narrower than the second airfoil leading edge,
However, Appa discloses a second rotating airfoil (not labelled, but two airfoils are on 101 in Fig. 4a) operatively coupled to the rotational shaft (paragraph 0052), wherein each of the first rotating airfoil and the second rotating airfoil including a leading edge and a trailing edge, the leading edge of the second rotating airfoil being rotationally aligned and spaced from the trailing edge of the first rotating airfoil (as shown in Fig. 4a, this configuration can be applied without changing the curved airfoil design of 1Gen).
And, Valsamidis discloses wherein the ring (comprising 1, Fig. 2) is rotatable relative to the rotational shaft (10) such that the ring may be rotated at a different speed than the rotation shaft (column 4, lines 25-26), and
wherein the nozzle (each 1) is operable to rotate the rotational shaft by directing wind toward the rotating airfoil (as shown in Fig. 7, this configuration can be applied without changing the curved airfoil design of 1Gen).
And, Zapata Martinez discloses the first airfoil trailing edge that is narrower than the first airfoil leading edge (Fig. 8b, all airfoils 6 are identical and have a design that goes from wide to narrow); and
he second airfoil trailing edge that is narrower than the second airfoil leading edge (Fig. 8b, a second airfoil 6, as all airfoils are identical and have a design that goes from wide to narrow).
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 design of Appa in order to efficiently capture the wind and to modify the outer ring of 1Gen to be rotatable at a different speed than the rotation shaft, as disclosed by Valsamidis, in order to maximally exploiting the wind, irrespective of the direction of its blowing (column 2, lines 2-4), and to modify the airfoil shape of 1Gen to have the figure of Zapata Martinez in order to better generate lift while maintaining the curved design of 1Gen.
Regarding claim 17: 1Gen discloses a second nozzle (Fig. 1, 3 regarding further comprising a second pairs of blades 4).
Regarding claim 18: 1Gen discloses the first airfoil has a non-zero chamber (Fig. 1, 3 regarding non-zero camber of blades 4; 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 20: 1Gen discloses the ring, but does not explicitly disclose the ring is rotatable when the rotational shaft is stationary.
However, Valsamidis discloses the ring is rotatable when the rotational shaft is stationary (column 4, lines 25-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outer ring of 1Gen to be rotatable at a different speed than the rotation shaft, as disclosed by Valsamidis, in order to maximally exploiting the wind, irrespective of the direction of its blowing (column 2, lines 2-4).
Conclusion
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 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