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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, and Species II, in the reply filed on 2/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 7 and 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chao et al. (“Optimization of Blade Pitch in H-rotor Vertical Axis Wind Turbines”, Applicant’s submitted IDS).
PNG
media_image1.png
231
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chao teaches a method of enhancing the performance of a vertical axis turbine (VAT) comprising at least two turbine blades, said method comprising: integrating blade pitch control with the VAT (abstract) to maintain a first constant AoA for each blade in an upstream zone and a second constant AoA for each blade in a downstream zone (asymmetric) (see Fig. 2 and section 2.1-2 detailing the optimal pitch angles on the upstream and downstream side to maintain a “changeless” angle of attack).
Regarding claim 2, Chao teaches the VAT comprises 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 blades (see Fig. 1 showing 3 blades).
Regarding claim 3, Chao teaches the VAT comprises 3 blades.
Regarding claim 4, Chao teaches the VAT comprises a Darrieus-type rotor (Chao teaches an H-Darrieus style).
Regarding claims 5-6, Chao teaches the enhanced performance is manifested as an increase of time-averaged net power coefficient (Cp), wherein the Cp is greater than about 0.45 (see Fig. 6 showing a Cp of 0.460-0.463)
Regarding claim 8, Chao teaches the method of claim 1, comprising an asymmetric control scheme.
Regarding claim 9, Chao teaches the VAT is capable of generating positive torque in both upstream and downstream cycles (see section 4.1).
Regarding claim 10, Chao teaches the blade pitch control comprises a continuous function (see Fig. 2 showing the continuous curve of blade pitch).
Regarding claim 11, Chao teaches the second constant AoA is greater than the first constant AoA (see section 2.1 where Chao details increasing blade lift and reducing blade drag).
Regarding claim 19, Chao teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to control a vertical axis turbine (VAT) comprising at least two turbine blades (see Fig. 1) to enhance the performance of the VAT by: integrating blade pitch control with the VAT (abstract) to maintain a first constant AoA for each blade in an upstream zone and a second constant AoA for each blade in a downstream zone (asymmetric) (see Fig. 2 and section 2.1-2 detailing the optimal pitch angles on the upstream and downstream side to maintain a “changeless” angle of attack), wherein the blade pitch is continuously adjusted using actuators (see Fig.2).
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 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 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 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Hirai (US6379115).
Regarding claim 12, Chao teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the VAT comprises an anemometer.
In an analogous art, Hirai teaches a vertical axis wind turbine. Hirai teaches an anemometer (11) to measure wind speed and direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Chao and change it so that the VAT comprises an anemometer as taught by Hirai to measure wind speed and direction.
Regarding claim 20, Chao teaches the computer program product of claim 19, but fails to explicitly teach the VAT comprises an anemometer.
In an analogous art, Hirai teaches a vertical axis wind turbine. Hirai teaches an anemometer (11) to measure wind speed and direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the computer program product of Chao and change it so that the VAT comprises an anemometer as taught by Hirai to measure wind speed and direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US references 2025/0084817, 11486354, 2017/0260966, and 2010/0096854 teach wind turbine control methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights