DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 09 September 2025 with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are deemed to overcome the previous objections.
Applicant’s amendments filed 09 September 2025 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 09 September 2025 with regards to the claim amendments have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that various claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C 112 issues remain and/or are introduced by the claim amendments. Reference is made to the below claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 37-43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 37, line 3, “smaller” should be deleted (to improve the clarity and/or remove a superfluous limitation: (1) there is not reference element for understanding “smaller”, (2) “ a case housing containing… multistage wind turbine rotor” (emphasis added) implies that “multistage wind turbine rotor” is smaller than “case housing”).
In claim 37, line 6, “a wind-directing stator assembly comprising” should be deleted (since: (1) this moniker is not used in the disclosure, (2) the disclosure uses the moniker “stator assembly” only in regards to conical-shaped stator assembly 510, (3) stator blades 320, which are the subject of this limitation, are not attached to each other and, thus, do not constitute an “assembly”).
In claim 37, 7th to 6th lines from bottom, “and downstream of said wind-directing stator assembly” should be deleted (since it is superfluous in light of “said converging stator blades are positioned upstream of said multistage wind turbine rotor; a venturi section positioned downstream of said multistage wind turbine rotor”).
In claim 38, line 1, “wherein said stator blades comprise: the converging stator blades positioned upstream of said one or more multistage wind turbine rotor; and” should be changed to --further comprising:-- (for clarity purposes since: (1) lines 2-3 are duplicative of antecedent limitations in claim 37, (2) the limitations of line 5 do not further limit “said stator blades” (line 1)).
In claim 38, 2nd line from bottom, --multistage wind turbine-- should be added before “rotor” (to use consistent terminology).
In claim 39, line 2 should be deleted (to remove duplicative limitations).
In claim 39, line 3 should be changed to --said multistage wind turbine rotor includes a vertical axis turbine rotor;-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice and to use the corresponding terminology of the disclosure).
In claim 39, last line, “interior turbine rotor” should be changed to --vertical axis turbine rotor-- (in response to an above change).
In claim 40, 3rd line from bottom, “reduce” should be changed to --limit--.
In claim 40, line 4, --multistage wind turbine-- should be added before “rotor” (to use consistent terminology).
In claim 40, last line, “reducing” should be changed to --limiting--.
In claim 41, lines 1-4, “wherein: said system further comprises” should be changed to --further comprising:--.
In claim 41, line 4, “or partitions” should be deleted (since the term “partitions” in not used in the disclosure).
In claim 41, last line, “reduction” should be changed to --limiting--.
In claim 42, line 4, “reducing” should be changed to --limiting-- (to improve the formality/clarity of the claim).
In claim 43, lines 3-4, “and downstream of the multistage wind turbine rotor” should be deleted (since it is duplicative of antecedent limitations in claim 37).
In claim 43, line 6, “reducing” should be changed to --limiting-- (to improve the formality/clarity of the claim).
In claim 43, last line, “minimize” should be changed to --limit-- (to improve the formality/clarity of the claim).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 37, the limitation recited as “one or more multistage wind turbine rotor” (emphasis added), in combination with the subsequent limitations “said converging stator blades are positioned upstream of said multistage wind turbine rotor” and “a venturi section positioned downstream of said multistage wind turbine rotor”, was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure indicates that only a single multistage wind turbine, not more than one multistage wind turbine rotor (as permitted by the instant language), is disposed between a respective set of converging stator blades and a respective venturi section (note: any additional stages that are added to “multistage wind turbine rotor” would still be covered by the moniker “multistage wind turbine rotor” and would not constitute an additional “multistage wind turbine rotor”). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting “one or more” and, in response, deleting all other instances of “one or more” (in regards to “multistage wind turbine rotor”) throughout the claims. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 38-43.
In claim 38, the limitation recited as “annular stators positioned downstream of said one or more multistage wind turbine rotor” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure indicates that annular stators 512 are downstream of only one rotor (215) of the multistage rotor, not the entirety (as required by the instant language) of the multistage rotor (215 & 225).
In claim 39, the limitation recited as “the cross-sectional area of the exterior wind inlets of said case housing is approximately four times the cross-sectional area of the wind entry region of said interior turbine rotor” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure (see pg:28:ll.1-4) indicates that the “four to one area ratio” is between “inlet” of “stator”, not “exterior wind inlets of said case”, and “exit” of “stator”, not “entry region of said interior turbine rotor”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this to --the converging stator blades combine to define an inlet diameter at the case housing and an exit diameter at the multistage wind turbine rotor, wherein the inlet diameter is 4 times the exit diameter--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 41 and 42.
In claim 40, the limitation recited as “one or more wind bypass passages formed in said case housing, each passage configured to allow excess wind to bypass the rotor” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure is silent as to any such “bypass passages” (note: there is no disclosed passage that provides a bypass path around the rotor 210 and/or 220). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this limitation and any limitations directed towards “bypassed wind” / “wind bypass passages”.
In claim 40, the limitation recited as “stationary guide vanes positioned at an angle to the airflow direction to assist in directing bypassed wind” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure is silent as to any such guide vanes (note: “converging stator blades”, which refer to blades 320, are antecedently established in claim 37; the disclosed vanes 115 do not guide a “bypassed wind”). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this limitation.
In claim 41, the limitation recited as “a plurality of wind-directing walls or partitions within said case housing” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure is silent as to any “walls” being “within said case housing” (note: “converging stator blades”, which refer to stator blades 320, is antecedently established in claim 37; the disclosure indicates that any such “walls” are external to the “case housing”). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “within” to --external to--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 42.
In claim 42, the limitation recited as “at least one of said wind-directing walls or partitions includes sound-absorbing material” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure is silent as to any such “sound-absorbing material” or any such similar element. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this limitation and any associated limitations.
In claim 43, the limitation recited as “a venturi exhaust section positioned adjacent to the generator” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure indicates that venturi exhaust section 130 and generator 235 are not positioned adjacent to each other in any sense. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending this to --the multistage wind turbine rotor is positioned between the venturi section and the generator--.
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.
Claims 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 37, the limitation recited as “said case housing integrates stator blades that converge” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if “stator blades that converge” is referring to the antecedent limitation/element “converging stator blades” (line 6) or introducing a new limitation. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting “case housing integrates” and “that”. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 38-43.
In claim 38, the limitation recited as “annular stators positioned downstream of said one or more multistage wind turbine rotor” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In this instance, the disclosure indicates that annular stators 512 are downstream of only one rotor (215) of the multistage rotor, not the entirety (as required by the instant language) of the multistage rotor (215 & 225). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this to --annular stators positioned downstream of a vertical axis turbine rotor of the multistage wind turbine rotor--.
In claim 39, the limitation recited as “the cross-sectional area of the exterior wind inlets of said case housing is approximately four times the cross-sectional area of the wind entry region of said interior turbine rotor” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In the instant case, the originally filed disclosure (see pg:28:ll.1-4) indicates that the “four to one area ratio” is between “inlet” of “stator”, not “exterior wind inlets of said case”, and “exit” of “stator”, not “entry region of said interior turbine rotor”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this to --the converging stator blades combine to define an inlet diameter at the case housing and an exit diameter at the multistage wind turbine rotor, wherein the inlet diameter is 4 times the exit diameter--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 41 and 42.
In claim 39, the limitation recited as “the exterior wind inlets” / “the cross-sectional area of the exterior wind inlets” renders the claim indefinite since there is no antecedent basis for these limitations. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “the” to --a-- or --an--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 41 and 42.
In claim 39, the term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite since it 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. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this term. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 41 and 42.
In claim 40, the limitation recited as “interior surfaces” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear which of the antecedent elements it is intended to modify.
In claim 40, the term “high” / “high wind conditions” (line 4 and last line) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite since it 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. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting “during high wind conditions” (both instances).
In claim 41, the limitation recited as “a plurality of wind-directing walls or partitions within said case housing” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In this instance, the disclosure (see pg.17:ln.20 through pg.18:ln.6) indicates that any “walls” are positioned external to the case housing. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “within” to --external to--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 42.
In claim 42, the limitation recited as “sound-absorbing material” renders the claim indefinite since the disclosure does not define and/or provide any examples of this material.
In claim 43, the limitation recited as “a venturi exhaust section” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitation/element “venturi section” (claim 37) or introducing a new limitation. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this to --the venturi section-- and deleting “exhaust” in line 6.
In claim 43, the limitation recited as “a venturi exhaust section positioned adjacent to the generator” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In the instant case, the originally filed disclosure indicates that venturi exhaust section 130 and generator 235 are not positioned adjacent to each other in any sense. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending this to --the multistage wind turbine rotor is positioned between the venturi section and the generator--.
In claim 43, the term “low” / “low rotational speed” / “low blade tip velocity” a relative term(s) which renders the claim indefinite since it 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 (note: the limiting effect of “low rotational speed” and/or “low blade tip velocity” on the structure of “multistage wind turbine rotor” is unclear). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting the last two lines of this claim.
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 of this title, 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 37, 39, and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezaris (US 8,128,337; previously cited) in view of Hein et al. (US 4,309,146 - hereafter referred to as Hein; previously cited).
In reference to claim 37 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pezaris discloses:
A vertical-axis wind turbine system comprising:
a case housing (i.e., the assembly of, at least, elements 41 & 42 & 60) containing:
a smaller one or more multistage wind turbine rotors (i.e., the assembly of rotors 32 & 36 and shaft 24);
a rotary power converter generator (22) coupled to said multistage wind turbine rotor;
a wind-directing stator assembly comprising converging stator blades (i.e., horn structures 37) configured to accelerate incoming airflow toward the multistage wind turbine rotor, wherein said converging stator blades are positioned upstream (see Figure 2) of said multistage wind turbine rotor;
wherein said one or more multistage wind turbine rotor convert (inherent) wind energy into electrical power via said generator
and
wherein said case housing integrates stator blades that converge toward the center of the rotor.
Pezaris does not disclose:
a venturi section positioned downstream of said multistage wind turbine rotor, said venturi section comprising a low-pressure exhaust zone with one or more vanes configured to assist air flow exit;
wherein said venturi section is disposed adjacent to said multistage wind turbine rotor and downstream of said wind-directing stator assembly.
Hein discloses:
a vertical axis wind turbine comprising a venturi section (D - Figure 8) that is downstream of a turbine rotor (15 - Figure 8), the venturi direction inducing a pump effect that enhances the drafting of air from the turbine rotor, thereby avoiding interference between air leaving the vertical axis wind turbine and atmospheric air (see col.3:ll.48-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pezaris to include a venturi section positioned downstream of the rotor, as disclosed by Hein, for the purpose of inducing a pump effect that enhances the drafting of air from the rotor, thereby avoiding interference between air leaving the vertical axis wind turbine and atmospheric air.
In reference to claim 39 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pezaris in view of Hein addresses:
The system of claim 37, further comprising:
an exterior box-like case housing (Pezaris - 41 & 42 & 60)(note: an exterior box-like case housing is considered as corresponding with the antecedent limitation a case housing) surrounding said one or more multistage wind turbine rotors;
an interior turbine rotor (Pezaris - 32) (note: an interior turbine rotor is considered as corresponding, at least in part, with the antecedent limitation a smaller one or more multistage wind turbine rotor) positioned within said case housing;
the cross-sectional area of the exterior wind inlets of said case housing is approximately (note: the term approximately is a term of degree that is not defined by the disclosure) four times the cross-sectional area of the wind entry region of said interior turbine rotor.
In reference to claim 41 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pezaris in view of Hein addresses:
The system of claim 39, wherein:
said system further comprises a plurality of wind-directing walls (see annotated Pezaris Figures 2 and 3 showing walls, which are the portions circumferentially between the depicted slots for passing air) or partitions within said case housing, each wall configured to assist in wind focus and noise reduction (note: the term assist is broad/non-specific; the phrase configured to assist in wind focus is a statement of intended use/result that does not structurally limit the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
239
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 42 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pezaris in view of Hein addresses:
The system of claim 41, wherein at least one of said wind-directing walls (Pezaris) or partitions includes sound absorbing material (note: any material is capable of absorbing sound; Applicant’s disclosure does not describe what constitutes sound absorbing material) to assist in reducing operational noise (note: the phrase to assist in reducing operational noise is a statement of intended use/result that does not structurally limit the claimed invention).
In reference to claim 43 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pezaris in view of Hein addresses:
The system of claim 37, further comprising:
a venturi exhaust section (Hein - D)(note: the limitation a venturi exhaust section is considered to refer to the antecedent limitation a venturi section in claim 37) positioned adjacent (i.e., near) to the generator (Pezaris - 22) and downstream of the multistage wind turbine rotor (Pezaris - 24 & 32 & 36),
wherein said venturi exhaust section assists (note: the term assists is broad/non-specific) in reducing operational noise through controlled airflow expansion (note: the phrase assists in reducing operational noise through controlled airflow expansion is a statement of intended use/result that does not structurally limit the claimed invention),
and wherein
said multistage wind turbine rotor is configured for low rotational speed (note: the term low is broad/non-specific and/or not defined by Applicant’s disclosure) and low blade tip velocity (note: the term low is broad/non-specific and/or not defined by Applicant’s disclosure) to minimize noise and vibration.
Examiner’s Comment
Although claim 38 is not rejected over prior art, patentability cannot be determined in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745