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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that while Claims 5 and 6 are currently withdrawn (See Election/Restriction section below), should they be rejoined after an eventual allowance and thus claim 5 be found allowable, claim 6 would be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claims 5-7 and newly presented claim 16 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Examiner notes the above claims fall under previously restricted features that were not elected by applicant on February 12, 2025, in response to the restriction of August 30, 2024. Examiner further notes said response to said restriction and election did not include a traversal. Examiner notes Claim 16 as presented now, falls under the same restriction as previous Group 2, claim 14, in particular given, per the rejection below, claim 1 is still rejectable by a 103, i.e. lack of unity, and the newly presented claim 16 does not include, any of the species’ features drawn to the formula for calculation of Species C. (Examiner notes the nature of the modules was not part of the species restriction as mere selection of material was not deemed part of the species as opposed to the formula, which Applicant has not included in the claim 16.) Similarly, the Examiner notes Claims 5-7 are drawn to non-elected species D, which was to a structure for setting up wind guides, with accommodating features for transport arrival, and flow blocking, none of which is incorporated in a formula for predicting the exact area, without accommodating for flow gaps in calculation.
Claim 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species D, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 12, 2025.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 12, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and the infill sheet panels using recycled turbine blade material has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument with regards to infill sheet material.
Applicant's arguments filed August 18, 2025 with regards to all other aspects of the previous rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant raises several arguments to the various combinations, which are argued as follows.
Field of Endeavor: Examiner respectfully notes, the field of endeavor is wind/flow blocking structures, Applicant is using said wind/flow blocking structures in front of a wind turbine. The examiner has already established clearly in the art of N Navarro, the selection of wind blocking structure, would be “various materials suitable to block the flow of wind,” [Col. 18, ll. 60-62, and various materials such as solid or flexible, in Col. 16, ll. 13-29.] Thus, the field of endeavor is materials known to block or redirect the flow of wind. Such a field of endeavor should be directed to materials or teachings that one of ordinary skill would note were capable of redirecting wind flow. The examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s attempt to impermissibly narrow the field of endeavor, or present the fields of the respective module elements as not suitable for wind redirection or wind turbines, without support. Further, Examiner notes with each module material and prior art, individually:
With regards to Shipping containers, US 2019/0153720 to Bonlin discloses features which are used in shipping (Examiner notes turbines components are shipped] which can be used to provide structural support and buildings, [Page 1, ¶1-3, 9-10 ]which one of ordinary skill would note block wind.
With regards to Compressed plant bales, WO 2010/022477 to Barrer teaches forming building construction (housing and other weather proof features) of compressed straw bales Page 1, ¶3-5, Page , 3rd to 4th paragraphs. Further contrary to Applicants allegations, Barrer is clearly shown in use with a wind turbine (Page 23, first to third paragraph) thus when use with wind turbines. Figure 49 clearly shows the haybale structure used to place wind turbines in a higher air stream, as well as said surface must redirect wind against it upward, where it would strike said wind turbines.
With regards to sheet piles, US 2008/0145153 Wendt Expressly discloses the formation of a barrier structure, said barrier structure expressly capable of blocking/redirecting wind (hurricanes and storms listed) and thus are known by those in the art to be capable of blocking wind. [Page 1, ¶1-2, 5-6, 12.] Further with regards to Applicant’s unsubstantiated allegations that one of ordinary skill would not recognize sheet piles (or infill) with regards to redirection to wind turbines, the Examiner refers Applicant to the previous Conclusion of the Non-final Action of June 12, 2025, where the examiner cited US 2018/0254736 to Duggal which explicitly noted the use of sheet piles in wind blocking construction further said features including wind turbine above the piles the wind was redirected to (Fig. 3, and Page 4 ¶44.) and further WO 2018/0069396 to Andersen et al. which taught sheet plies and infill in sea and land based construction supporting and around wind turbines (Page 10, line 0-Page 11, line 18 and Page 33, ll. 0-30.) Even where the examiner to find Applicant’s narrowing of the field of endeavor, it is clearly established in the art that infill and sheet piles are known in wind turbine construction and for wind redirection. Applicant also appears to make an argument as to the amount of material below ground to above, which is not properly a field of endeavor argument, but as the previous rejection expressly noted, Wendt clearly disclosed the feature of the area above ground to below being between 4 and 6, which would meet the greater than one and less than 9.
With regards to infill sheet modules, see discussion of sheet plies above with regards to Wendt.
No motivation to combine. Applicant has not argued against any of the motivations provided for Wendt, Bonlin, or Barrer, each of which the examiner cited a specific motivation found exclusively within the prior art, as to why it would be a desirable material selection. Applicant appears to be combining arguments against the inflow shaping (found in N1) geometry (Found in Wolf, W1), as failings in the prior arts not used to argue those features, and further, has not provided argument against the motivations cited for those references. A mere argument that there is no motivation to combine is not persuasive absent refuting the previously provided motivations to combine.
The claimed choices are not mere design choice. This argument appears to be improperly directed. At no point did the examiner argue against the selection of the materials in question as being design choice. The examiner instead argued only the arbitrary size of a single shipping container, (a standardized thing in the world), the haybale (selected from any number of sizers for construction wall), or the infill sheet piles (again selected from sizes for wall production.) The examiner did not argue design choice for material selection, only for the size of the individual elements used in the formula, which, again the applicant provided no criticality for in the specification. The shipping containers used in Bonlin would include selection from standard shipping container sizes. The hay bales in Barrer, would have a size selected from building a wall, similar to that of applicant, and the infill sheet modules of Barrer would be sufficient to address wind forces from a storm or hurricane, i.e. sizes one might select to block wind also to a wind turbine. With regards to arguments B and C the examiner directs Applicant to the restriction/election section above save for claim 2, which Applicant has not argued against individually.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-2 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 1 Applicant claims the wind guide system , selected form a group consisting of Shipping contains, compressed plant-product bales, sheet piles, and infill sheet piles; however, they then utilize the formula for shipping containers OR the formula for plant product bales, and sheet piles and infill sheet modules. Without an or between the formula, one of ordinary skill must use the formulas for all but the shipping containers, even for a system that does not include all three of sheet piles, bales, and infill sheet modules, nor any guidance as to how all three formulas and materials could be placed in the same region/overlapping provided in the specification. The applicant should amend to utilize a series of “or” between he formulas or an “if” statement for each formula section, indicating at the start of each formula section a “if said modules are shipping containers, the number of shipping containers,” etc. for each section.
Examiner Note
Examiner notes: Applicant claims the wind guide system be floating, but requires, for sheet piles, that the sheet piles be below ground or sea-bed for some portion, and thus not floating. Applicant should be aware should a future amendment narrow to the sheet piles, that these are mutually exclusive features.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 11,156,202 to Navarro (N1) in view of US 2017/0107975 to Wolf et al. (W1), US 2019/0153720 to Bonlin et al. (B1), “Brick Calculator” (B2), and US 2009/0297332 to Boyd (B3).
In Re Claim 1:
N1 teaches:
A wind turbine guide system, (Fig. 13A, 22), comprising at least ten modules [(N1, Fig. 4a -7B show four plates, and Fig. 13A to 14C show a wind wall with a series of at least ten module posts/supports(81, 82) making the wall, and a wind turbine (40)];
A wind turbine(Fig. 13A, 40) comprising a tower (4) and a rotor(8) provided with a number of rotor blades(6) defining a rotor swept area (inherent in rotor blades rotating about a point);
Said wind guide system being ground-based (Seen in Figure 13A) [Per Col. 5, Il. 15-20 the system maybe ground mounted.]
A horizontal length of at least 60 m, a vertical height and a horizontal width and at least two lateral ends (81, 81), [Per Col. 4, Il. 56-60 the rotor diameter may be between 50 and 150 m. Col. 11, Il. 45-46 says the width (length) of the guide is larger than the diameter of the wind turbine, i.e. greater than 150 m is possible. Col. 6, Il. 12-19, the height of the guide is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height from the ground to the rotor.]
Wherein the wind guide system is arranged and configured to receive wind from an altitude below the rotor swept area and to redirect the wind from a first direction to a second direction toward an area in front of and/or behind the rotor swept area; [Per Col. 6, ll. 12-19 the height of the guide is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height of the rotor, but also below the rother, i.e. the height per this would be below the swept area of the blades. Further, per Col. 5, ll. 5-16, redirects this external wind to the swept area in a new direction into the rotor wind swept area.]
N1 does not teach:
The explicit height of the guides being 5m or greater and wherein the modules are shipping containers wherein the number of shipping containers in one wind guide system is greater than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 shipping containers in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
N1 further teaches:
The height of the guide is for example, 2/3 the height of the rotor height, said rotor height being the rotor clearance, or distance between the blade tips and the ground. (N1, Col. 6, ll. 10-27.].
W1 teaches:
The rotor clearance of a wind turbine can be between 20-70m on a wind turbine with a rotor blade height between 25-100+m. [See Figure 1A and 1B, which show the rotor wind turbine size as 51-150m, or 25-100+m, and the rotor clearance between 20-70m.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, which is silent to the rotor tip blade clearance height, to use the well-known rotor tip height of 20-70m as taught by W1, for the purpose of providing a known in the art and successfully blade tip clearance, [W1, Figures 1a and 1B.] This would yield the limitation of a wind guide height which is greater than 2/3 the rotor blade tip clearance which at a minimum would be 20m, and thus the height of the wind guide would be 12.6m minimum.
N1 as modified by W1 does not teach:
Wherein the modules are shipping containers wherein the number of shipping containers in one wind guide system is greater than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 shipping containers in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
N1 as modified by W1 further teaches:
The wind guide can be composed of various materials suitable to block wind flow. [Col. 18, ll. 60-62, disclose various materials and plates, Col. 16, ll. 13-29.] The length of the wall being greater than the diameter of the rotor and greater than 5m in height. [Col. 19, ll. 10-15 discloses the length of the guide is superior to the swept area of diameter d1 of the turbine. Col. 6, ll. 12-28, discloses the height of the blades is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height from the ground to the rotor, and per the modification of W1 in claim 1, results in a minimum height of 12.66m. ]
B1 teaches:
One of ordinary skill would recognize shipping containers as a suitable construction material, to provide low cost structural components that are large and strong enough to form a structural support or building. [Page 1, ¶ 1-3.] Further the advantages of a structural element to help secure the containers together which can be delivered within the shipping containers for easier construction. [Page 1, ¶9-10.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, to use shipping containers as construction materials for structure as taught by B1, with the expectation of successfully providing a wind guide wall composed of low cost structural components. [Page 1, ¶1-3.] This would yield the expectation of successfully providing shipping containers as wind guide wall structures.
N1 and W1 as further modified by B1 does not teach:
The number of shipping containers in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 shipping containers in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
B2 teaches:
When determining the number of elements to build a wall it would be obvious to calculate using the width and height of the wall and dividing by the area of the brick. [Page 3, Section Calculating the number of Bricks Needed.] It can be useful to estimate the number of bricks needed (and adding 10% more) to ensure you have sufficient need for construction. [Pages 2-3.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, to determine the number of elements to build the structure one should use the formula for area of the structure and area of the construction elements plus 10%, as taught by B2, with the expectation of successfully providing a manner of determining how many elements are needed for construction. This would yield the limitation of the number of shipping containers in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/building block area. [Given the height is 12.66m, it will be higher than that of 5m.]
N1 as modified thus far does not teach:
The number of shipping containers in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 shipping containers in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
B3 teaches:
The width of a wind guide wall should be about 1.1 to 1.3 times the rotor diameter to prevent side slippage of the diverted airstream. [Page 5, ¶70.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1 such that the wind guide length was 1.3 times the rotor diameter as taught by B3 with the expectation of successfully reducing or preventing side slippage of the airstream around the wind turbine. This would yield the limitation of the wind guide length being 1.3 * rotor diameter length and rotor diameter length greater than 5m. (12.66m), and the formula claimed, save for the area of the shipping containers and the minimum of 10 shipping containers in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
N1 as modified thus far does not teach:
The number of shipping containers in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula wherein the area of the construction elements area(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 shipping containers in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the shipping containers as sized as 12m * 2.4m because Applicant has not specifically disclosed that the use of a generic shipping container as sized provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the shipping containers being used by the prior art. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shipping container size to be 12m * 2.4m to obtain the invention as specified. Further per Claim 1, it is required that the height of the wall be at least 5m and the length be at least 60m, with these minimum numbers and the shipping container as sized, one would HAVE to have at least 10 shipping containers with a 60*5/12*2.4 = 10.41. Given the claimed structure is larger with a larger height, it would certainly provide at least the 10.
In Re Claim 2:
N1 as modified thus far teaches:
The wind turbine system according to claim 1, wherein:
N1 further teaches:
The wind guide system modules are arranged to form a wind guide system angled perpendicular to the ground, seabed, or sea surface within the range of +/- 10 degrees. [N1, Col. 18, ll. 57-60 note the modules can be perpendicular to the vertical and arranged at zero degrees.]
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N1 in view of W1, WO 2010/022477 to Barrer (B4), B2, and B3.
In Re Claim 1:
N1 teaches:
A wind turbine guide system, (Fig. 13A, 22), comprising at least ten modules [(N1, Fig. 4a -7B show four plates, and Fig. 13A to 14C show a wind wall with a series of at least ten module posts/supports(81, 82) making the wall, and a wind turbine (40)];
A wind turbine(Fig. 13A, 40) comprising a tower (4) and a rotor(8) provided with a number of rotor blades(6) defining a rotor swept area (inherent in rotor blades rotating about a point);
Said wind guide system being ground-based (Seen in Figure 13A) [Per Col. 5, Il. 15-20 the system maybe ground mounted.]
A horizontal length of at least 60 m, a vertical height and a horizontal width and at least two lateral ends (81, 81), [Per Col. 4, Il. 56-60 the rotor diameter may be between 50 and 150 m. Col. 11, Il. 45-46 says the width (length) of the guide is larger than the diameter of the wind turbine, i.e. greater than 150 m is possible. Col. 6, Il. 12-19, the height of the guide is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height from the ground to the rotor.]
Wherein the wind guide system is arranged and configured to receive wind from an altitude below the rotor swept area and to redirect the wind from a first direction to a second direction toward an area in front of and/or behind the rotor swept area; [Per Col. 6, ll. 12-19 the height of the guide is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height of the rotor, but also below the rother, i.e. the height per this would be below the swept area of the blades. Further, per Col. 5, ll. 5-16, redirects this external wind to the swept area in a new direction into the rotor wind swept area.]
N1 does not teach:
The explicit height of the guides being 5m or greater and modules are compressed plant-product bales where the number of bales in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(1 (m) * .36 (m)) with a minimum of 166 bales in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
N1 further teaches:
The height of the guide is for example, 2/3 the height of the rotor height, said rotor height being the rotor clearance, or distance between the blade tips and the ground. (N1, Col. 6, ll. 10-27.].
W1 teaches:
The rotor clearance of a wind turbine can be between 20-70m on a wind turbine with a rotor blade height between 25-100+m. [See Figure 1A and 1B, which show the rotor wind turbine size as 51-150m, or 25-100+m, and the rotor clearance between 20-70m.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, which is silent to the rotor tip blade clearance height, to use the well-known rotor tip height of 20-70m as taught by W1, for the purpose of providing a known in the art and successfully blade tip clearance, [W1, Figures 1a and 1B.] This would yield the limitation of a wind guide height which is greater than 2/3 the rotor blade tip clearance which at a minimum would be 20m, and thus the height of the wind guide would be 12.6m minimum.
N1 as modified by W1 does not teach:
Modules are compressed plant-product bales where the number of bales in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(1 (m) * .36 (m)) with a minimum of 166 bales in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
N1 as modified by W1 further teaches:
The wind guide can be composed of various materials suitable to block wind flow. [Col. 18, ll. 60-62, disclose various materials and plates, Col. 16, ll. 13-29.] The length of the wall being greater than the diameter of the rotor and greater than 5m in height. [Col. 19, ll. 10-15 discloses the length of the guide is superior to the swept area of diameter d1 of the turbine. Col. 6, ll. 12-28, discloses the height of the blades is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height from the ground to the rotor, and per the modification of W1 in claim 1, results in a minimum height of 12.66m. ]
B4 teaches:
Discarded straw from plant crops is one of the world’s most abundant waste products, the straw-bale construction is a building method that uses straw compressed into plant bales, which is low in cost and easily available. [Page 1, 3-5 paragraphs.] Such crops are also naturally termite resistance. [Page 2, first paragraph.] This can be strengthened with support beams. [Page 4, 3rd to 4th paragraph.] Can be used in support structures with wind turbines. [Page 23, first to third paragraph.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, to utilize compressed straw bales as the construction material as taught by B4, with the expectation of using a termite resistance, cheap and easily available construction material. [Page 1, 3-5 paragraphs and Page 2, first paragraph.]
N1 and W1 as further modified by B4 does not teach:
The number of bales in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(1 (m) * 0.36 (m)) with a minimum of 166 bales of plant matter in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
B2 teaches:
When determining the number of elements to build a wall it would be obvious to calculate using the width and height of the wall and dividing by the area of the brick. [Page 3, Section Calculating the number of Bricks Needed.] It can be useful to estimate the number of bricks needed (and adding 10% more) to ensure you have sufficient need for construction. [Pages 2-3.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, to determine the number of elements to build the structure one should use the formula for area of the structure and area of the construction elements plus 10%, as taught by B2, with the expectation of successfully providing a manner of determining how many elements are needed for construction. This would yield the limitation of the number of hay bales in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/building block area. [Given the height is 12.66m, it will be higher than that of 5m.]
N1 as modified thus far does not teach:
The number of bales of compressed plant matter in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/1 (m) * 0.36 (m)) with a minimum of 166 bales of compressed plant matter in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
B3 teaches:
The width of a wind guide wall should be about 1.1 to 1.3 times the rotor diameter to prevent side slippage of the diverted airstream. [Page 5, ¶70.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1 such that the wind guide length was 1.3 times the rotor diameter as taught by B3 with the expectation of successfully reducing or preventing side slippage of the airstream around the wind turbine. This would yield the limitation of the wind guide length being 1.3 * rotor diameter length and rotor diameter length greater than 5m. (12.66m), and the formula claimed, save for the area of the bales and the minimum of 166 bales in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
N1 as modified thus far does not teach:
The number of bales in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula wherein the area of the construction elements area (1 (m) * 0.36 (m)) with a minimum of 166 hay bales in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the bales as sized as 1m * 0.36 m because Applicant has not specifically disclosed that the use of a generic hay bale as sized provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the hay bale being used by the prior art. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the hay bales size to be 1 m * 0.36 m to obtain the invention as specified. Further per Claim 1, it is required that the height of the wall be at least 5m and the length be at least 60m, with these minimum numbers and the hay bale as sized, one would HAVE to have at least 166 hay bales with a 60*5/1 * 0.36 = 833.33. Given the claimed structure is larger with a larger height, it would certainly provide at least the 166.
In Re Claim 2:
N1 as modified thus far teaches:
The wind turbine system according to claim 1, wherein:
N1 further teaches:
The wind guide system modules are arranged to form a wind guide system angled perpendicular to the ground, seabed, or sea surface within the range of +/- 10 degrees. [N1, Col. 18, ll. 57-60 note the modules can be perpendicular to the vertical and arranged at zero degrees.]
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N1 in view of W1, US 2008/0145153 to Wendt et al. (W2), B2, and B3.
In Re Claim 1:
N1 teaches:
A wind turbine guide system, (Fig. 13A, 22), comprising at least ten modules [(N1, Fig. 4a -7B show four plates, and Fig. 13A to 14C show a wind wall with a series of at least ten module posts/supports(81, 82) making the wall, and a wind turbine (40)];
A wind turbine(Fig. 13A, 40) comprising a tower (4) and a rotor(8) provided with a number of rotor blades(6) defining a rotor swept area (inherent in rotor blades rotating about a point);
Said wind guide system being ground-based (Seen in Figure 13A) [Per Col. 5, Il. 15-20 the system maybe ground mounted.]
A horizontal length of at least 60 m, a vertical height and a horizontal width and at least two lateral ends (81, 81), [Per Col. 4, Il. 56-60 the rotor diameter may be between 50 and 150 m. Col. 11, Il. 45-46 says the width (length) of the guide is larger than the diameter of the wind turbine, i.e. greater than 150 m is possible. Col. 6, Il. 12-19, the height of the guide is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height from the ground to the rotor.]
Wherein the wind guide system is arranged and configured to receive wind from an altitude below the rotor swept area and to redirect the wind from a first direction to a second direction toward an area in front of and/or behind the rotor swept area; [Per Col. 6, ll. 12-19 the height of the guide is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height of the rotor, but also below the rother, i.e. the height per this would be below the swept area of the blades. Further, per Col. 5, ll. 5-16, redirects this external wind to the swept area in a new direction into the rotor wind swept area.]
N1 does not teach:
The explicit height of the guides being 5m or the modules are sheet piles driven vertically into the grounded where the number of sheet piles in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) /2.4 m, with a minimum of 25 sheet piles in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length, and the area of the wind guide system below the ground or seabed is lower than 9 and higher than 1.
N1 further teaches:
The height of the guide is for example, 2/3 the height of the rotor height, said rotor height being the rotor clearance, or distance between the blade tips and the ground. (N1, Col. 6, ll. 10-27.].
W1 teaches:
The rotor clearance of a wind turbine can be between 20-70m on a wind turbine with a rotor blade height between 25-100+m. [See Figure 1A and 1B, which show the rotor wind turbine size as 51-150m, or 25-100+m, and the rotor clearance between 20-70m.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, which is silent to the rotor tip blade clearance height, to use the well-known rotor tip height of 20-70m as taught by W1, for the purpose of providing a known in the art and successfully blade tip clearance, [W1, Figures 1a and 1B.] This would yield the limitation of a wind guide height which is greater than 2/3 the rotor blade tip clearance which at a minimum would be 20m, and thus the height of the wind guide would be 12.6m minimum.
N1 as modified by W1 does not teach:
The modules are sheet piles driven vertically into the grounded where the number of sheet piles in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) /2.4 m, with a minimum of 25 sheet piles in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length, and the area of the wind guide system below the ground or seabed is lower than 9 and higher than 1.
N1 as modified by W1 further teaches:
The wind guide can be composed of various materials suitable to block wind flow. [Col. 18, ll. 60-62, disclose various materials and plates, Col. 16, ll. 13-29.] The length of the wall being greater than the diameter of the rotor and greater than 5m in height. [Col. 19, ll. 10-15 discloses the length of the guide is superior to the swept area of diameter d1 of the turbine. Col. 6, ll. 12-28, discloses the height of the blades is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height from the ground to the rotor, and per the modification of W1 in claim 1, results in a minimum height of 12.66m. ]
W2 teaches:
The use of vertically driven Sheet piles or infilled sheet modules in construction of wind blocking structures. These structures can be built rapidly and secure the sites easily. [Page 1, ¶1-2, 5-6, 12.] Further said area of the sheet pile structure below ground to above ground is 1:4 to 1:6, thus 4 to 6 times the area is above the ground as below, per the claimed area for secure use of the structure. [Page 2, ¶14.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1 to teach using sheet piles, with a ratio of 4 to 6 for area above to below ground as taught by W2 with the expectation of successfully providing a rapid and easy to assemble wind guide structure with secure attachment per Page 1, ¶1-2, 5-6, 12 and Page 2, ¶14.] This would yield the limitation of using sheet piles with a ratio of area above to below ground of 4 to 6.
N1 and W1 as further modified by W2 does not teach:
Where the number of sheet piles in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) /2.4 m, with a minimum of 25 sheet piles in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length,
B2 teaches:
When determining the number of elements to build a wall it would be obvious to calculate using the width and height of the wall and dividing by the area of the brick. [Page 3, Section Calculating the number of Bricks Needed.] It can be useful to estimate the number of bricks needed (and adding 10% more) to ensure you have sufficient need for construction. [Pages 2-3.] One of ordinary skill would further understand that when ignoring height, the formula could use just the length of wall and length of building element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, to determine the number of elements to build the structure one should use the formula for area of the structure and area of the construction elements plus 10%, as taught by B2, with the expectation of successfully providing a manner of determining how many elements are needed for construction. This would yield the limitation of the number of sheet plies, when using only length of wall and length of sheet pile to be higher than the number resulting from this formula (1 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) /building block area. [Given the height is 12.66m, it will be higher than that of 5m.]
N1 as modified thus far does not teach:
The number of sheet piles in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m))/ 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 25 sheet plies in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
B3 teaches:
The width of a wind guide wall should be about 1.1 to 1.3 times the rotor diameter to prevent side slippage of the diverted airstream. [Page 5, ¶70.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1 such that the wind guide length was 1.3 times the rotor diameter as taught by B3 with the expectation of successfully reducing or preventing side slippage of the airstream around the wind turbine. This would yield the limitation of the wind guide length being 1.3 * rotor diameter length and rotor diameter length greater than 5m. (12.66m), and the formula claimed, save for the length of the sheet piles and the minimum of 25 sheet plies in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
N1 as modified thus far does not teach:
The number of sheet piles in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula wherein the area of the construction elements area (2.4m in length) with a minimum of 25 sheet piles in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the sheet piles as sized as 2.4 m because Applicant has not specifically disclosed that the use of a generic sheet pile as sized provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the sheet pile being used by the prior art. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the sheet pile size to be 2.4m in length to obtain the invention as specified. Further per Claim 1, it is required that the height of the wall be at length at least 60m, with these minimum numbers and the sheet piles as sized, one would HAVE to have at least 25 sheet piles a 60/2.4 = 25. Given the claimed structure is larger and the formula teaches providing an extra 10%, it would certainly provide at least the 25.
In Re Claim 2:
N1 as modified thus far teaches:
The wind turbine system according to claim 1, wherein:
N1 further teaches:
The wind guide system modules are arranged to form a wind guide system angled perpendicular to the ground, seabed, or sea surface within the range of +/- 10 degrees. [N1, Col. 18, ll. 57-60 note the modules can be perpendicular to the vertical and arranged at zero degrees.]
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N1 in view of W1, W2, GB 2606215 to Smith et al. (S1), B2, and B3.
In Re Claim 1:
N1 teaches:
A wind turbine guide system, (Fig. 13A, 22), comprising at least ten modules [(N1, Fig. 4a -7B show four plates, and Fig. 13A to 14C show a wind wall with a series of at least ten module posts/supports(81, 82) making the wall, and a wind turbine (40)];
A wind turbine(Fig. 13A, 40) comprising a tower (4) and a rotor(8) provided with a number of rotor blades(6) defining a rotor swept area (inherent in rotor blades rotating about a point);
Said wind guide system being ground-based (Seen in Figure 13A) [Per Col. 5, Il. 15-20 the system maybe ground mounted.]
A horizontal length of at least 60 m, a vertical height and a horizontal width and at least two lateral ends (81, 81), [Per Col. 4, Il. 56-60 the rotor diameter may be between 50 and 150 m. Col. 11, Il. 45-46 says the width (length) of the guide is larger than the diameter of the wind turbine, i.e. greater than 150 m is possible. Col. 6, Il. 12-19, the height of the guide is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height from the ground to the rotor.]
Wherein the wind guide system is arranged and configured to receive wind from an altitude below the rotor swept area and to redirect the wind from a first direction to a second direction toward an area in front of and/or behind the rotor swept area; [Per Col. 6, ll. 12-19 the height of the guide is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height of the rotor, but also below the rother, i.e. the height per this would be below the swept area of the blades. Further, per Col. 5, ll. 5-16, redirects this external wind to the swept area in a new direction into the rotor wind swept area.]
N1 does not teach:
The explicit height of the guides being 5m or the modules are infill sheet modules oriented horizontally or vertically, wherein the number of modules in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 modules in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length, wherein the sheets are manufactured with recycled composite material from used wind turbine blades.
N1 further teaches:
The height of the guide is for example, 2/3 the height of the rotor height, said rotor height being the rotor clearance, or distance between the blade tips and the ground. (N1, Col. 6, ll. 10-27.].
W1 teaches:
The rotor clearance of a wind turbine can be between 20-70m on a wind turbine with a rotor blade height between 25-100+m. [See Figure 1A and 1B, which show the rotor wind turbine size as 51-150m, or 25-100+m, and the rotor clearance between 20-70m.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, which is silent to the rotor tip blade clearance height, to use the well-known rotor tip height of 20-70m as taught by W1, for the purpose of providing a known in the art and successfully blade tip clearance, [W1, Figures 1a and 1B.] This would yield the limitation of a wind guide height which is greater than 2/3 the rotor blade tip clearance which at a minimum would be 20m, and thus the height of the wind guide would be 12.6m minimum.
N1 as modified by W1 does not teach:
The modules are infill sheet modules oriented horizontally or vertically, wherein the number of modules in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 modules in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length, wherein the sheets are manufactured with recycled composite material from used wind turbine blades.
N1 as modified by W1 further teaches:
The wind guide can be composed of various materials suitable to block wind flow. [Col. 18, ll. 60-62, disclose various materials and plates, Col. 16, ll. 13-29.] The length of the wall being greater than the diameter of the rotor and greater than 5m in height. [Col. 19, ll. 10-15 discloses the length of the guide is superior to the swept area of diameter d1 of the turbine. Col. 6, ll. 12-28, discloses the height of the blades is between 1/3 and 2/3 the height from the ground to the rotor, and per the modification of W1 in claim 1, results in a minimum height of 12.66m. ]
W2 teaches:
The use of Sheet piles or infilled sheet modules in construction of wind blocking structures. These structures can be built rapidly and secure the sites easily. [Page 1, ¶1-2, 5-6, 12.] Further said area of the sheet pile structure below ground to above ground is 1:4 to 1:6, thus 4 to 6, per the claimed area for secure use of the structure. [Page 2, ¶14.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1 to teach using infill sheet modules as taught by W2 with the expectation of successfully providing a rapid and easy to assemble wind guide structure with secure attachment per Page 1, ¶1-2, 5-6, 12 and Page 2, ¶14.] This would yield the limitation of using infill sheet modules.
N1 and W1 as further modified by W2 does not teach:
The number of modules in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 modules in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length, wherein the sheets are manufactured with recycled composite material from used wind turbine blades.
S1 teaches:
It is known that wind turbine blades utilize composite fiber materials and represents a significant amount of product that after extended use must be replaced, and in doing so generate a significant amount of material waste. [Page 2, ll. 4-28.] It is desirable to extract from used wind turbine blades, an improved building product. [Page 4, ll. 1-5, 8-10, 26-27.] Said building products include cement components and fibres. [Page 6, ll. 6-14.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1 and W2, such that the infill material was formed from cement based building materials obtained from recycled used wind turbine blades as taught by S1, with the expectation of successfully providing a manner to recycle the undesirable wind turbine blade waste, providing a more environmental friendly process and economic use of wind turbine waste material to produce wind turbine construction materials. [Page 2, ll. 4-28, Page 4, ll. 1-5, 8-10, 26-27, and Page 6, ll. 6-14.] This would yield the limitation of the infill sheet modules including material made from recycled composite material from used wind turbine blades.
N1 and W1 as further modified by W2 and S1 does not teach:
The number of modules in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 modules in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length, wherein the sheets are manufactured with recycled composite material from used wind turbine blades.
B2 teaches:
When determining the number of elements to build a wall it would be obvious to calculate using the width and height of the wall and dividing by the area of the brick. [Page 3, Section Calculating the number of Bricks Needed.] It can be useful to estimate the number of bricks needed (and adding 10% more) to ensure you have sufficient need for construction. [Pages 2-3.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1, to determine the number of elements to build the structure one should use the formula for area of the structure and area of the construction elements plus 10%, as taught by B2, with the expectation of successfully providing a manner of determining how many elements are needed for construction. This would yield the limitation of the number of modules in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/building block area. [Given the height is 12.66m, it will be higher than that of 5m.]
N1 as modified thus far does not teach:
The number of modules in one wind guide system is higher than the number resulting from this formula (1.3 * Rotor_Diameter_Length (m) * 5 (m))/(12 (m) * 2.4 (m)) with a minimum of 10 modules in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diameter length.
B3 teaches:
The width of a wind guide wall should be about 1.1 to 1.3 times the rotor diameter to prevent side slippage of the diverted airstream. [Page 5, ¶70.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of N1 such that the wind guide length was 1.3 times the rotor diameter as taught by B3 with the expectation of successfully reducing or preventing side slippage of the airstream around the wind turbine. This would yield the limitation of the wind guide length being 1.3 * rotor diameter length and rotor diameter length greater than 5m. (12.66m), and the formula claimed, save for the area of the infill sheet modules and the minimum of 10 modules in each wind guide system regardless of the rotor diamete