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 .
Preliminary Formalities
A thorough review of both the claims and the disclosure has been made. Pursuant to MPEP 707.07(j), and for the purposes of assisting Applicant and expediting prosecution, it is respectfully noted that there does not appear to be any patentable subject matter disclosed in the application relative to the elected embodiment.
Specifically, the prior art teachings of Dawoud et al. (US 2010/0303623 A1), discussed in greater detail hereinbelow, as well as of Barber (US 8,174,142 B2), appear to anticipate and/or render obvious all the disclosed structural features of the claimed power generating turbine assembly. Other references teaching electrical power generating turbine assemblies comprising tension-based turbine blade assemblies, which would appear to teach and/or render obvious various aspects of the disclosed invention, have also been cited.
Note that features specific to the rotating turbine blade assembly (e.g., blade arrangement, blade shape, rotor structure, etc.) have been previously disclosed by Applicant—see, e.g., US 7,775,760 B1, US 2011/0012363 A1 | US 8,668,455 B2, US 10,435,145 B1, US 10,443,569 B1, and US 11,021,243 B1. As these were all published well before the effective filing date of Applicant’s Provisional U.S. App. No. 63/414,647, to which the instant application claims priority, these disclosures comprise valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and would not appear to benefit from any exceptions under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species VIII (as illustrated in Fig. 31) in the reply filed on 04/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “[t]he general concept of the present invention is to provide support to the rotating turbine blade assembly during operation. Each of FIGS. 25 through 31 provides support to the rotating turbine blade assembly during operation” (Rem. 14, emphasis added). Applicant continues, indicating “FIGS 30 and 31 (Species VII and VIII) each provide support to the rotating turbine blade assembly in an axial direction” (Rem. 14, emphasis added). Applicant contends that having “[a] single wheel or two wheels doesn't change the benefit for support in the axial direction” (Rem. 15).
This is not found persuasive because, initially, the two species have different structures and although perhaps related, each species provides different structure(s) for “provid[ing] support […] in an axial direction”. Applicant recognizes this difference and admits as much—one species, for example, has “[a] single wheel” whereas the other species has “two wheels” (Rem. 15). Respectfully, species are, by their very nature, related; but such relatedness does not extinguish the differences present. Here, differences between the species present a search and examination burden precisely because they have divergent subject matter which would also require different fields of search.
Lastly, Applicant has failed to submit evidence or identify evidence now of record showing these different species (especially Species VII and Species VIII as argued by Applicant) to be obvious variants of one another or clearly admit on the record that this is the case.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5, 12 have been canceled. Claims 9, 19 are withdrawn. Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-18, 20-22 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, line 1, the limitation “A electrical power generating turbine assembly” should be: —An electrical power generating turbine assembly—.
Regarding claim 11, line 1, the limitation “A electrical power generating turbine assembly” should be: —An electrical power generating turbine assembly—.
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, 11, 16-18, each element and/or step should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m). For example, in claim 6, the phrase “the electrical power generating turbine assembly further comprising […]” should be separated by a line indentation from the limitation immediately preceding it.
Regarding claim 8, line 3, the limitation “an outer rim” should be —the outer rim—, as the term has already been introduced in claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support
thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
In claims 8, 18: “a wheel compression adjusting system designed to adjust a compression applied to the outer rim by each of the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel and the second rim engagement wheel”.
This may be interpreted as, e.g., —a means for adjusting a compression applied to the outer rim […]—. As such, it meets the three-prong test detailed above as the term “system” i) is a nonce term, ii) is modified by functional language, and iii) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function of “adjusting a compression […]”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8, 18, the limitation “a wheel compression adjusting system designed to adjust a compression applied to the outer rim by each of the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel and the second rim engagement wheel” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
As discussed above, the limitation appears to invoke, and is being interpreted under, 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
However, the specification fails to make clear what a “wheel compression adjusting system” may be, what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise, or how such a “system” may function “to adjust a compression applied to the outer rim […]” as claimed. The specification mentions this feature only in paragraph ¶ 93 but the claim language is simply repeated without providing any further written description of what the “wheel compression adjusting system” may be or what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6-9; and similarly in claim 11, lines 6-8; the limitation “a rotating turbine blade assembly support structure, the rotating turbine blade assembly arranged to rotationally support the rotating turbine blade assembly enabling rotation of the rotating turbine blade assembly” is vague and indefinite.
The limitation appears to require the “assembly” to be “arranged to rotationally support the […] assembly enabling rotation of the rotating turbine blade assembly”—that is, the limitation is self-reflexive and appears to indicate that the “assembly” is arranged to support itself.
In light of the first part of the limitation introducing a “support structure,” it appears that the intended limitation would read: —a rotating turbine blade assembly support structure, the rotating turbine blade assembly support structure arranged to rotationally support the rotating turbine blade assembly, thereby enabling rotation of the rotating turbine blade assembly—.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9 and 11-12; and similarly in claim 11; the limitations “a substantially vertical orientation” and “a substantially vertical axis” are vague and indefinite. Specifically, the terms “substantially” and “vertical” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Furthermore, the claim fails to clearly set forth a point or plane of reference by which to define the term “vertical”.
Regarding claim 1, lines 14, 16, 18; and similarly in claim 11; the claim sets forth multiple recitations of “during operation”. However, the claim fails to make clear either i) what “operation” is being referenced (i.e., “operation” of what element(s)), or ii) whether these “operation[s]” refer to one and the same “operation” or whether multiple, distinct “operation[s]” are intended to be set forth.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel additionally provides axial support to the rotating turbine blade assembly” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how “axial support” may be “provide[d]”.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel is oriented to rotate about an axis that is non-parallel to a rotational axis of the rotating turbine blade assembly” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear whether the feature of “an axis” introduced here may be the same as, or is separate and distinct from, the feature of “a substantially vertical axis” newly introduced in claim 1, as amended in Applicant’s Submission of 04/03/2025.
Regarding claim 7, lines 8-9, the limitation “the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel and the second rim engagement wheel are arranged to maintain at least one of axial stability and radial stability of the rotating turbine blade assembly” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what “maintain[ing] at least one of axial stability and radial stability” may comprise, including what the apparent directions “axial” and “radial” may refer to. The claim fails to clearly set forth a point or plane of reference by which to define either of these relative terms.
Second, the claim fails to make clear how either “engagement wheel” element may be may be “arranged” specifically “to maintain at least one of axial stability and radial stability of the rotating turbine blade assembly” (emphasis added) as claimed.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 8, lines 8-10; and relatedly in claim 18; the limitation “a wheel compression adjusting system designed to adjust a compression applied to the outer rim by each of the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel and the second rim engagement wheel” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear both what the claimed “wheel compression adjusting system” may comprise or how such a “system” may “adjust a compression applied to the outer rim” as claimed.
Second, as noted previously, the limitation invokes and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, as also previously noted, the specification fails to clearly identify what the claimed “wheel compression adjusting system” may comprise or how such a “system” may “adjust a compression applied to the outer rim” as claimed.
Lastly, the limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claims 21, 22, the limitation “each of the turbine blades extends between an interior edge of the outer rim and a location less than a midpoint of each respective tension element” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The emphasized portion is not idiomatic and fails to make clear what a “location less than a midpoint of each respective tension element” is intended to refer to.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 21; and claims 13-18, 20, 22; they are dependent on claims 1, 11, respectively, and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 10; and relatedly in claim 20; the limitation “the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel engages one of directly or indirectly with the electric power generator” (emphasis added) effectively encompasses all types of connection/“engage[ment]” between the “engagement wheel” and the “power generator”. However, as claims 1, 11, respectively, already requires that “the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel is arranged to rotationally drive the electric power generator,” a connection/“engage[ment]” between the two elements has already been set forth. Thus, claims 10, 20 each fail to further limit the implicit connection set forth in claims 1, 11, respectively, and thus fails to further limit the subject matter as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(d).
For the purpose of expediting prosecution, prior art will be applied in reference to the claims as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-17, 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawoud et al. (US 2010/0303623 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, as best understood, Dawoud et al. discloses an electrical power generating turbine assembly, comprising:
a rotating turbine blade assembly (see, e.g., Fig. 2) comprising an outer rim (rim 9), a tension airfoil central hub assembly (hub 14), tension elements (e.g., spokes 7 or tension elements 8) extending between the outer rim (rim 9) and the tension airfoil central hub assembly (hub 14), and a plurality of turbine blades (flexible sails 11) secured to the tension elements (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3);
a rotating turbine blade assembly support structure (tower structure comprising lower tower 1 and upper tower 4), the rotating turbine blade assembly support structure (tower 1+4) arranged to rotationally support the rotating turbine blade assembly enabling rotation (via anti-friction bearings 2 which allow upper tower 4 to rotate about lower tower 1) of the rotating turbine blade assembly, the rotating turbine blade assembly support structure extending in a substantially vertical orientation (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3);
an electric power generator (one of electrical generators 15); and
an electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (one of friction wheels 14) rotating about a substantially vertical axis (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3: friction wheels 14 rotate about a vertical axis, generally parallel to beam 6, coincident with radial axis of blade assembly),
wherein the rotating turbine blade assembly is arranged to be rotationally driven by at least one of wind and water during operation (here, wind is used; see, e.g., Abstract),
wherein the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is arranged to be rotationally driven by the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly during operation (see, e.g., ¶ 30),
wherein the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is arranged to rotationally drive the electric power generator (electrical generator 15) during operation (see, e.g., ¶ 30).
Regarding independent claim 11, as best understood, Dawoud et al. discloses an electrical power generating turbine assembly, comprising:
a rotating turbine blade assembly (see, e.g., Fig. 2) comprising an outer rim (rim 9), a tension airfoil central hub assembly (hub 14), tension elements (e.g., spokes 7 or tension elements 8) extending between the outer rim (rim 9) and the tension airfoil central hub assembly (hub 14), and a plurality of turbine blades (flexible sails 11) secured to the tension elements (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3);
a rotating turbine blade assembly support structure (tower structure comprising lower tower 1 and upper tower 4), the rotating turbine blade assembly support structure (tower 1+4) arranged to rotationally support the rotating turbine blade assembly enabling rotation (via anti-friction bearings 2 which allow upper tower 4 to rotate about lower tower 1) of the rotating turbine blade assembly (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3);
an electric power generator (one of electrical generators 15); and
an electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (one of friction wheels 14),
wherein the rotating turbine blade assembly is arranged to be rotationally driven by at least one of wind and water during operation (here, wind is used; see, e.g., Abstract),
wherein the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is arranged to be rotationally driven by the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly during operation (see, e.g., ¶ 30),
wherein the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is arranged to rotationally drive the electric power generator (electrical generator 15) during operation (see, e.g., ¶ 30),
wherein the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel is arranged to provide support to the rotating turbine blade assembly in an axial direction (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3: the arrangement of friction wheels 14 relative to the rim 9 mirrors Applicant’s arrangement and, as such, would appear to provide the claimed support “in an axial direction,” thereby teaching the intended metes and bounds, in spite of the claim’s ambiguities).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel additionally provides axial support to the rotating turbine blade assembly (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3: the arrangement of friction wheels 14 relative to the rim 9 mirrors Applicant’s arrangement and, as such, would appear to provide the claimed support “in an axial direction,” thereby teaching the intended metes and bounds, in spite of the claim’s ambiguities).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) additionally provides at least one of axial support and radial support to the rotating turbine blade assembly (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3: the arrangement of friction wheels 14 relative to the rim 9 mirrors Applicant’s arrangement and, as such, would appear to provide the claimed support “in an axial direction,” thereby teaching the intended metes and bounds, in spite of the claim’s ambiguities).
Regarding claim 4, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is oriented to rotate about an axis that is non-parallel to a rotational axis of the rotating turbine blade assembly (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3: friction wheels 14 have a rotation axis that is vertical, parallel to direction of beam 6, whereas rotation axis of turbine blade assembly is horizontal—i.e., about axis of hub 5).
Regarding claim 6, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is located to engage with a first position (e.g., left side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly, and
the electrical power generating turbine assembly further comprises a second electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (second friction wheel 14) located to engage with a second position (e.g., right side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is located to engage with a first position (e.g., left side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly, the electrical power generating turbine assembly further comprising a second electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (second friction wheel 14) located to engage with a second position (e.g., right side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly,
wherein the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel and the second rim engagement wheel are arranged to maintain at least one of axial stability and radial stability of the rotating turbine blade assembly (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3: the arrangement of friction wheels 14 relative to the rim 9 mirrors Applicant’s arrangement and, as such, would appear to provide the claimed at least one of “axial stability and radial stability,” thereby teaching the intended metes and bounds, in spite of the claim’s ambiguities).
Regarding claims 10, 20, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) engages one of directly or indirectly with the electric power generator (see, e.g., ¶ 30: [t]he wheels (14) are directly connected to energy converters (15) like electrical generator).
Regarding claim 13, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the rotating turbine blade assembly support structure (tower 1+4) enables rotation (via anti-friction bearings 2 which allow upper tower 4 to rotate about lower tower 1) of each of the rotating turbine blade assembly and the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) about a generally vertical axis (about vertical axis, not separately numbered, along axis defined by B-B as shown in Fig. 2) to reposition the rotating turbine blade assembly respective to a direction of the wind (see, e.g., ¶ 14).
Regarding claim 14, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is oriented to rotate about an axis that is non-parallel to a rotational axis of the rotating turbine blade assembly (see, e.g., Fig. 3: axis of rotation of friction wheel 14 is vertical, which is “non-parallel” to horizontal axis of rotation of the blades about stationary shaft 5).
Regarding claim 15, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is oriented to rotate about an axis that is substantially 90 degrees to a rotational axis of the rotating turbine blade assembly (see, e.g., Fig. 3: axis of rotation of friction wheel 14 is vertical, which would appear to be “substantially 90 degrees to” horizontal axis of rotation of the blades about stationary shaft 5).
Regarding claim 16, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is located to engage with a first position (e.g., left side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly, the electrical power generating turbine assembly further comprising a second rim engagement wheel (second friction wheel 14) located to engage with a second position (e.g., right side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is located to engage with a first position (e.g., left side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly, the electrical power generating turbine assembly further comprising a second rim engagement wheel (second friction wheel 14) located to engage with a second position (e.g., right side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly, wherein the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel and the second rim engagement wheel are arranged to provide support to the rotating turbine blade assembly in at least one of the axial direction and a radial direction (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 3: the arrangement of friction wheels 14 relative to the rim 9 mirrors Applicant’s arrangement and, as such, would appear to provide the claimed at least one of “axial stability and radial stability,” thereby teaching the intended metes and bounds, in spite of the claim’s ambiguities).
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 8, 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawoud et al. (US 2010/0303623 A1) in view of Barber (US 2010/0264663 A1).
Regarding claims 8, 18, as best understood, Dawoud et al. further discloses that the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (friction wheel 14) is located to engage with a first position (e.g., left side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly, the electrical power generating turbine assembly further comprising a second rim engagement wheel (second friction wheel 14) located to engage with a second position (e.g., right side of rim 9; see Fig. 3) on the outer rim (rim 9) of the rotating turbine blade assembly.
However, Dawoud appears to be silent regarding a wheel compression adjusting system.
On the other hand, Barber (Figures 1-6) discloses an electrical power generating turbine assembly (wind turbine 20), comprising:
a rotating turbine blade assembly (turbine wheel 22) comprising an outer rim (perimeter rim 24), a tension airfoil central hub assembly (central hub, centered about axle structure 28/118; see, e.g., Figs. 1, 2, 7), tension elements (cables 32/130) extending between the outer rim and the tension airfoil central hub assembly (see, e.g., Fig. 7), and a plurality of turbine blades (sail wing assemblies 30) secured to the tension elements;
an electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel (wheel members 62A/62B, 82A/82B, 102A/102B; see, e.g., Figs. 3, 4, 6, respectively) rotating about a substantially vertical axis, and, notably,
a wheel compression adjusting system (e.g., turnbuckle 64, 84, 104, respectively) designed to adjust a compression applied to the outer rim by each of the electric generator turbine rim engagement wheel and the second rim engagement wheel (see, e.g., ¶¶ 34-35, 37, 39, respectively).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the turbine assembly of Dawoud et al. with the wheel compression adjusting system, as taught by Barber, for the purpose of ensuring adequate compression of the wheels against the rim so that the wheels rotate with the circumferential movement of the rim (see, e.g., ¶ 34, 35).
Claims 21, 22, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawoud et al. (US 2010/0303623 A1) in view of Finnell (US 10,443,569 B1).
Regarding claims 21, 22, as best understood, Dawoud et al. discloses the assemblies as set forth in claims 1, 11, respectively.
However, Dawoud et al. appears to be silent regarding details of the turbine blades as claimed.
On the other hand, Finnell (Figures 1, 10-16) discloses an electrical power generating turbine assembly (e.g., turbine deployment assembly 200), comprising:
a rotating turbine blade assembly (turbine wheel assembly 100) comprising an outer rim (turbine outer rim 102), a tension airfoil central hub assembly (turbine center hub 104), tension elements (turbine spokes 108, preferably assembled having a tensile force; see, e.g., col. 8, ll. 29-30) extending between the outer rim and the tension airfoil central hub assembly (see, e.g., Fig. 1), and a plurality of turbine blades (turbine blades 110) secured to the tension elements (spokes 108);
wherein, notably, each of the turbine blades extends between an interior edge of the outer rim and a location less than a midpoint of each respective tension element (see, e.g., Fig. 1; col. 8, ll. 51-60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the assemblies of Dawoud et al. with the type of turbine blade assembly including the claimed structural relationships (as best as they may be understood), as taught by Finnell, the for the purpose of increasing a generated torque, reducing a rotational resistance, and thereby increasing an efficiency of the turbine (see, e.g., col. 8, ll. 51-60).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office Action, that support be shown for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, to specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
October 14, 2025
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834