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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 6, 2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 6, 2024 have been fully considered. The previous 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections are withdrawn based on the amendments. New 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections are presented based on the amendments. The specification is objected to as well for the reasons discussed below. The drawing objections are withdrawn based on the amended drawings.
With regard to 35 U.S.C 103 the applicant argues that it is whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious and all words in a claim must be considered in the judging patentability. The applicant provides no specific arguments as to how the rejections presented do not abide by these principles. The examiner finds that the rejections below do abide by these principles.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner finds based on the limitations themselves and page 7 of the remarks of September 6, 2024, the following limitations of claim 1 together require that the entire turbine housing slot is positioned in solely between the leading edge and the line. Claim 1 limitations:
“the turbine housing slot being positioned in between the leading edge and a line”
“the turbine housing slot being positioned offset from the line”
Specification
The amendment filed September 6, 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
All amendments related to the concepts discussed in the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections below including the line across the low-pressure side and the high-pressure side being flat.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites, “turbine housing slot being positioned in between the leading edge and a line across the low-pressure side, wherein the line is parallel to the leading edge and is coincident to a maximum thickness of the foil body, and wherein the high-pressure side is flat, and wherein the maximum thickness of the foil body is perpendicular to the high-pressure side; the turbine housing slot being positioned offset from the leading edge; the turbine housing slot being positioned offset from the line”. These limitations are not specifically recited in the original specification; therefore, the applicant relies upon the figures for support. The applicant cites Figures 7 and 10 as clearly supporting the amended claims. There is no explicit depiction of the location of the line itself or the maximum thickness of the airfoil. Additionally, the closest concept in the original specification is “The turbine housing slot 10 is also positioned adjacent to the leading edge 3 so that the fluid turbine 15 is exposed to the fluid flow with the highest speed”. The drawings are not described as to scale. Therefore, the support for the limitation is left to what one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably taught and cannot rely on precise measurements, see MPEP 2125.
The examiner finds that the strict geometric constraints would not be reasonably taught to someone of ordinary skill in the art by the original disclosure. As noted in the claim interpretation section above, the claims require that the slot be solely between the leading edge and the line. Since, the maximum thickness is upstream of the mid-chord and somewhere near where the slot is, a person of reasonably ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably taught it must be in between the claimed line and the leading edge. It is noted that the examiner finds there would be support for a broader limitation where the turbine housing slot overlaps / intersects with the claimed line.
Claim 1 also recites, “wherein the high-pressure side is flat”. The specification does not provide support for this limitation and therefore the drawings are relied upon.
The examiner finds that the airfoil disclosed by applicant’s figures (including Figure 7) show an airfoil with a curved leading edge region (3). The leading edge that is a line in/out of the page (a point in the figure) that separates the high-pressure side and the low-pressure side is roughly where (3) points as well. The region near (3) that is on the high-pressure side is therefore curved. A similar airfoil to applicant’s can be seen in Fig. 2.21 from Peiqing Liu, A General Theory of Fluid Mechanics, 2021, pg 92 below which demonstrates this, where the high-pressure side includes a curved region by the leading edge. Based on the discussion above, the examiner finds that the high-pressure side of the applicant’s disclosure is not flat.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
1186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hare (U.S Patent 4,288,200) hereinafter O’Hare in view of Harwood et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20160053742) hereinafter Harwood and Leon Martinez (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20200191114) hereinafter Leon Martinez.
PNG
media_image2.png
641
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
638
503
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, O’Hare discloses:
A vertical-axis renewable-power generator {Figure 7 (63) is substantially the rotation axis and is connected to generator (64)} comprising:
a vertically-oriented foil {Figure 7 (60)};
a fluid turbine {Figure 7 (65) are the blades of the turbine};
a proximal panel {Annotated Figure 1 (V), this panel may also be seen in Figure 5};
a distal panel {Annotated Figure 1 (VI) this panel may also be seen in Figure 5};
the vertically-oriented foil comprising a foil body {Figure 6 (60)} and a turbine housing slot {Annotated Figure 1 (VII)};
the foil body comprising a leading edge, a trailing edge, a low-pressure side, a high-pressure side, a proximal side, and a distal side {Annotated Figure 1 (I) through (VI) respectively};
the turbine housing slot comprising a proximal open slot end and a distal open slot end {Annotated Figure 2 (VIII) and (IX)};
the leading edge and the trailing edge being positioned opposite to each other about the foil body {Annotated Figure 1 (I) and (II) are opposite each other};
the low-pressure side and the high-pressure side being positioned opposite to each other about the foil body {Annotated Figure 1 (III) and (IV) are opposite each other};
the proximal side and the distal side being positioned opposite to each other about the foil body {Annotated Figure 1 (V) and (VI) are opposite each other with (V) being the side with further attachment/support and (VI) having no further attachment/support};
the turbine housing slot traversing into the foil body from the low-pressure side {Annotated Figure 1 (VII) traverses into the foil body from (III)};
the turbine housing slot traversing through the foil body from the proximal side to the distal side {Annotated Figure 1 (VII) extends from (V) to (VI); this concept may be seen in Figure 5 as well};
the proximal open slot end being positioned coincident with the proximal side {Annotated 2 (VIII) is coincident with the plane that is (V)};
the distal open slot end being positioned coincident with the distal side {Annotated 2 (IX) is coincident with the plane that is (VI)};
the turbine housing slot being positioned offset from the leading edge {Annotated Figure 1 (VII) is offset from (I)};
the fluid turbine being rotatably mounted into the turbine housing slot {Column 3 lines 31-40};
a rotation axis of the fluid turbine being positioned parallel to the leading edge {Annotated Figure 1, the rotation of turbine blades (65) is parallel to leading edge (I)}; and
the fluid turbine traversing out of the foil body from the turbine housing slot and through the low-pressure side {Figures 6 and 7 (65) traverse out of body (60) and through low pressure side (III) labeled in Annotated Figure 1}.
O’Hare does not disclose:
the proximal panel being connected across the proximal side;
the proximal panel being coextensive to the proximal side;
the proximal panel being configured to seal off the proximal open slot end;
the distal panel being connected across the distal side;
the distal panel being coextensive to the distal side;
the distal panel being configured to seal off the distal open slot end;
the turbine housing slot being positioned in between the leading edge and a line across the low-pressure side,
wherein the line is parallel to the leading edge and is coincident to a maximum thickness of the foil body, and
wherein the high-pressure side is flat, and
wherein the maximum thickness of the foil body is perpendicular to the high-pressure side the turbine housing slot being positioned offset from the line
PNG
media_image4.png
671
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Harwood pertains to turbines with airfoil shields. Harwood teaches:
the proximal panel being connected across the proximal side {Annotated Figure 3 (V) points to both the proximal panel and this surface is also the plane of the proximal side};
the proximal panel being coextensive to the proximal side {Annotated Figure 3 (V) points to both the proximal panel and this surface is also the plane of the proximal side};
the proximal panel being configured to seal off the proximal open slot end {Annotated Figure 3 (V) seals of (VIII) on the proximal side; [0075]-[0078]};
the distal panel being connected across the distal side {Annotated Figure 3 (VI) points to both the proximal panel and this surface is also the plane of the proximal side};
the distal panel being coextensive to the distal side {Annotated Figure 3 (VI) points to both the proximal panel and this surface is also the plane of the proximal side};
the distal panel being configured to seal off the distal open slot end {Annotated Figure 3 (VI) seals of (IX) on the distal side; [0075]-[0078]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a continuous surfaces that cover both the proximal and distal open slot ends as taught by Harwood for the configuration of O’Hare. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it provides robust structural support for the mounting of the blades and directs airfoil similar to the rest of the airfoil shield {Harwood [0075]-[0078]}. The results of the substitution would be predictable as airflow not exiting the distal or proximal side of the airfoil shield would not provide changes besides a slight improvement of torque acting on the turbine and increased rigidity of the airfoil shield.
PNG
media_image5.png
548
727
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Leon Martinez pertains to a wind turbine with airfoil shield. Leon Martinez teaches:
the turbine housing slot being positioned in between the leading edge and a line across the low-pressure side {Annotated Figure 4, the opening for the rotor in the panel (908) is in between the leading edge on the far left and a line across the low-pressure side that is in/out of the page};
wherein the line is parallel to the leading edge and is coincident to a maximum thickness of the foil body {Annotated Figure 4 (X) is parallel to the leading edge (in/out of the page) and is coincident to the max thickness of the foil body}, and
wherein the high-pressure side is flat {Figure 9, the bottom surface of the airfoil in the figure is the high-pressure side and is flat}, and
the turbine housing slot being positioned offset from the line {Annotated Figure 4, the turbine housing slot which accommodates the rotors is offset from (X)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the turbine housing slot of O’Hare positioned as claimed and as taught by Leon Martinez offset from the line on the low-pressure side that is at the maximum thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to have the turbine rotor positioned where the velocity of the air is greatest near the accelerator portion of the airfoil shield {Leon Martinez, [0087]}.
Regarding claim 2, O’Hare further discloses:
the fluid turbine comprising a plurality of curved fins {Figure 7 (65)};
the plurality of curved fins being radially positioned around the rotation axis of the fluid turbine {Figure 7 the instances of (65) are circumferentially spaced about the rotation axis}; and
a chord line of the low-pressure side being intersected by the plurality of curved fins {Figure 6 (65) crosses the chord line on the low-pressure side, the upper side in the figure}.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hare (U.S Patent 4,288,200) hereinafter O’Hare in view Harwood and Leon Martinez as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Santoro (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20100215488) hereinafter Santoro.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of O’Hare, Harwood, and Leon Martinez discloses claim 1. O’Hare further discloses:
a support shaft {Figure 7 (64) supports the structures above it};
a generator {Figure 7 (64), Column 3 lines 37-38}
the support shaft being positioned parallel to the leading edge {Annotated Figure 1 (64) is parallel to the leading edge (I)};
the proximal side being positioned at an end of the support shaft {the proximal side of the vertically oriented foil is next to the generator which also acts a support shaft (64)}
the foil body being rotatably mounted to the support shaft {Column 3 lines 25-34}; and
the rotor being torsionally connected to the fluid turbine {Column 3 lines 35-38, rotation of turbine blades causes shaft to rotate which drives the generator (rotor)}.
O’Hare teaches the turbine shaft (63) drives the generator {Column 3 lines 35-38}. O’Hare is silent regarding details of the generator, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the generator comprises a rotor and a stator.
Santoro teaches that a generator comprises a rotor and stator {[0046] and [0055]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the generator of O’Hare have a rotor and a stator. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as these elements convert mechanical energy to electrical energy in the operation of a generator {Santoro [0046] and [0055]}.
Regarding claim 4, O’Hare further discloses the support shaft being positioned collinear to the rotation axis of the fluid turbine {Figure 7 (64) is collinear with (63)}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of O’Hare, Harwood, Leon Martinez, and Santoro further teaches the stator being mounted within the support shaft {O’Hare Figure 7 (64) is the generator which comprises the stator as discussed in claim 3, this structure is within the support shaft as the generator acts as a support shaft}.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hare (U.S Patent 4,288,200) hereinafter O’Hare in view of Harwood and Leon Martinez as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Poole (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20130195636) hereinafter Poole.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of O’Hare, Harwood, and Leon Martinez discloses the vertical-axis renewable power generator of claim 1 but does not disclose:
the vertically-oriented foil comprising at least one pressure portal;
the at least one pressure portal comprising a portal inlet and a portal outlet;
the portal inlet traversing into the foil body from the high-pressure side;
the portal inlet being positioned adjacent to the leading edge; and
the portal outlet traversing out of the foil body and into the turbine housing slot.
Poole pertains a vertical axis wind turbine with an air shield. Poole teaches:
the vertically-oriented foil comprising at least one pressure portal {Figure 1A (108) has pressure portal (114)};
the at least one pressure portal comprising a portal inlet and a portal outlet {Figure 1A (114) has arrow showing inlet and outlet};
the portal inlet traversing into the foil body from the high-pressure side {Figure 1A (114) has inlet traversing into the foil body on the high-pressure side};
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressure portal of Poole and applied it to the vertically-oriented foil of O’Hare. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the air introduced from the high-pressure side can further spin the turbine {Poole [0030]}.
The combination of O’Hare, Harwood, Leon Martinez, and Poole teaches the portal outlet traversing out of the foil body and into the turbine housing slot {The outlet of the applied pressure portal to O’Hare would have the outlet going into the turbine housing slot. The high pressure side is the lower surface of (60) in Figure 6}.
The combination of O’Hare, Harwood, Leon Martinez, and Poole does not teach a precise position of the turbine housing slot or the pressure portal inlet and therefore does not teach “the portal inlet being positioned adjacent to the leading edge”. Poole does teach that the pressure portal shape and position can be varied {[0040]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the portal inlet of the combination of O’Hare, Harwood, Leon Martinez, and Poole being positioned adjacent to the leading edge. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the pressure portal shape and position can be varied to affect the power output of the wind turbine {Poole [0040]}. Additionally, the inlet of the pressure portal inlet would need to be near the turbine housing slot of O’Hare for the pressure portal to function as discussed in Poole. The turbine housing slot of O’Hare is considered adjacent the leading edge. The claim is interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation with adjacent not describing an exact range of the chord position required.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of O’Hare, Harwood, Leon Martinez, and Poole further teaches the at least one pressure portal traversing through the foil body from the proximal side to the distal side {Poole Figure 1A (114), Figure 2A shows a perspective view which shows that they extend the full span, [0033]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745