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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art, the applicant’s arguments, see page 4 through page 10, address the prior art individually, and notably do not discuss the claim limitations. The rejections were under 35 USC 103 and thus the rejections are based on a combination of the prior art. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The examiner notes the applicant’s arguments focus on differences between the prior art and the applicant’s invention, but not the claimed invention. Without discussing the claim limitations and the rejections, the arguments against the prior art will not be persuasive unless they show significant deficiencies with the prior art – such as a reference not being available as prior art or the prior art being non-analogous art.
Regarding US 11,313,348 to Yu, the applicant has argued, see page 4, lines 19-24, that Yu is not applicable prior art because the publication date is subsequent to the priority date of the applicant’s invention and Yu is entirely irrelevant because Yu is directed to a vertical axis wind turbine while the applicant’s invention is a horizontal axis wind turbine. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Yu was cited as a secondary reference to modify US 8,651,798 to Allaei in the rejection of dependent claim 3 under 35 USC 103. While the priority date of the applicant’s invention is October 4, 2021 and the publication date of Yu is April 2, 2022, the filing date of Yu is April 17, 2020. Since Yu was filed before the effective priority date of the claimed invention, Yu qualifies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as a patent issued under section 151 in which the patent names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The examiner further notes the pre-grant publication of Yu (US 2020/0332764) was published October 22, 2020, which also pre-dates the priority date of the applicant’s invention.
Second, the applicant’s claim 3, lines 4-6 state “the equipment system also further comprises a vertical axis wind engine…” and Yu teaches a vertical axis wind turbine – as agreed upon by the applicant. Yu is directly related to the invention of claim 3 – and was only cited in the rejection of claim 3 and its dependent claim 4.
Regarding US 299,127 to Garrigus, the applicant’s arguments, see page 4, line 25 through the top drawing on page 7, generally discuss the age of Garrigus and differences between the principles of operation of the prior art device and the applicant’s invention. The examiner notes the differences between the prior art and applicant’s invention are largely matters of scale (such power levels and dimensions) and are not features present in the claims. The applicant is arguing for differences which are not pertinent to the rejections. Regarding the age of Garrigus, the age of a patent does not disqualify it as available prior art. The document was published over a year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and is available as prior art.
The applicant has asserted there is a difference between “overhead wind” and “low-altitude wind”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “overhead wind” includes wind of any altitude over the wind turbine. If there is an important distinction between “overhead wind” and any other type of wind, then claim limitations supported by the original specification should be added focusing on that distinction.
Regarding the drawings on pages 6 and 7, the examiner is unclear from where these drawings are sourced and their relevance to the arguments. The labels on the drawings associate them with “T1” and “D1”. The applicant referred to Garrigus as “D1”, however the drawings are not in Garrigus. The drawings are also not the applicant’s Figures 1-3. It is unknown what document is “T1”.
Regarding US 4,398,096 to Fauholtz, the applicants arguments, see page 7, lines 1-8 and the Figure at the bottom of page 7, have been considered, but are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments discuss the general nature of the invention of the prior art, but do not discuss the claim limitations or how Fauholtz was relied upon in the rejection. At most, the arguments appear to focus on distinctions between the prior art and the applicant’s overall invention, but not the claimed invention.
Regarding US 9,294,013 to Allaei, the applicant’s arguments, see page 8, lines 1-7 and the Figure on page 8, have been considered, but are not persuasive. The discuss the general nature of the invention of the prior art, but do not discuss the claim limitations or how Allaei was relied upon in the rejection. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “low-altitude wind” reads over “overhead wind”. The applicant is arguing for a distinction which is not claimed.
Regarding US 2016/0369646 to Hendrix, the applicant’s arguments, see page 8, line 8 through the drawings on page 10, have been considered, but are not persuasive. The discuss the general nature of the invention of the prior art, but do not discuss the claim limitations or how Hendrix was relied upon in the rejection. Hendrix was cited as a secondary reference in the rejection of claim 1 by adding a windbreak cover to the equipment system used in the method of Allaei. The applicant’s arguments do not rebut the teaching of Hendrix, but rather argue it is non-analogous art because Hendrix teaches a system using ocean temperature differentials. The system of Hendrix uses both wind energy and ocean temperature differentials, and the windbreak cover is related to the wind energy components of the system – which are in the same field of endeavor as the applicant’s invention and thus Hendrix is analogous prior art.
Regarding the drawings on pages 9 and 10, the applicant labelled them as Figures 6, 7, and 8 of the present invention, however the Figures do not match Figures 6-8 of the filed drawings. The sources of the Figures are unclear.
Regarding objections to the claims, specification, and drawings, the applicant has stated, see page 11, lines 1-11, that the applicant has agreed to make the change to Figure 1, argued Figure 8b shows the features of claim 4, and stated the specification and claims have been amended to overcome the objections. The examiner appreciates the attempt to address the issues, however the issues have not been fully and sufficiently addressed.
Regarding the drawings, the replacement drawings are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) because the version of the drawings in the clean copy of the specification are not labelled as “Replacement Sheet”.
Further, while the applicant has argued Figure 8b shows the embodiment of claim 4 having the air turbine of claim 1, the vertical axis wind engine of claim 3, and the additional wind engine of claim 4, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 8b only has the reference number 17 identifying the additional wind engine. The Figure is missing the reference numbers identifying the air turbine and the vertical axis wind engine. The examiner respectfully requests the other reference numbers be added to clearly show the location of the air turbine and vertical axis wind engine.
Regarding the specification, the examiner appreciates the corrections to the notations for the various ranges, however the objection for page 9 regarding the description of the “vertical axis wind engine 17” was not changed. The specification still contains the conflicting description of the vertical axis wind engine. If a vertical axis wind engine is arranged in the horizontal direction, then it is a horizontal axis wind engine.
Regarding the claims, the examiner appreciates the corrections to claim 1, but notes claim 3 was not amended. The objections of claim 1 have been withdrawn, but the objection of claim 3 will be maintained below.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) for non-enablement, the applicant’s arguments, see page 11, line 12 through page 12, line 5, have been considered, but are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments do not address the details of the rejection. Rather, the applicant asserts their invention achieves an 80% efficiency according to “reference document 4”, compared the invention to a steam turbine, asserted the Betz’s limit is incorrect, and concluded that it is logically sound that efficiency increases as the total blade area increases or by employing multiple stages of blades similar to a steam turbine.
The applicant has not provided a copy of the reference documents through an IDS. The examiner notes a copy of reference 5 was provided as an affidavit. The affidavit will be addressed below. The references that were not provided cannot be reviewed and verified to consider the applicant’s arguments. The applicant is reminded that the arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (MPEP §2145 I).
Additionally, the applicant’s arguments appear to rely on features which are not claimed. The applicant compared their invention to steam turbines and having multiple stages. The claims do not state the air turbine has multiple stages. Rather, claim 1 merely refers to “a high efficiency air turbine”. “High efficiency” is a relative term whose scope is not clearly defined. It appears the claims may be broader than the applicant intended. If specific structural features are required to achieve the “high efficiency” for the air turbine, then the claims should be amended to recite those features. As claim 1 is currently written, any “high efficiency air turbine” reads over this feature.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b), the applicant has argued, see page 12, line 6 through page 13, line 13, that the word “indirectly” is defined in the specification in contrast to “directly” where “directly” refers to wind turbines having blades directly placed into the moving airflow, and thus the word “indirectly” is understood as meaning the energy-containing fluid is first collected, and then transported to a separate location for conversion. The examiner appreciates the explanation, however the context where claim 1 uses the word “indirectly” does not support this definition. Specifically, claim 1, lines 1-2 introduce “an equipment system for indirectly catching wind”. The equipment system comprises “an overhead wind catcher” which catches the wind, and then “a wind duct” guides the collecting wind downwards to the “high efficiency air turbine”. The overhead wind catcher directly catches the wind, and then the wind is re-directed to the air turbine.
The examiner further notes definition provided by the applicant does not appear to be in the original disclosure. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant point to where support for this definition is in the original disclosure. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) will be maintained.
The applicant concluded, see page 14, lines 4-9, that there is a critical distinction between “overhead wind” and “low-altitude wind” regarding the Power coefficient of the WT. If this is the case, then the applicant should add such a distinction to the claims to clarify the difference between the prior art and the applicant’s invention.
Response to Affidavits
The applicant filed two documents listed as Affidavits on February 2, 2026. These are being treated as Affidavits filed under Rule 1.132.
The first document is titled “A Theoretical Redefinition of Nacelle Transfer Function Determination in Wind Turbine Efficiency Assessment”. The applicant cited this document as “Reference Document 5” in the response to the non-enablement rejection.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed February 2, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon 35 USC 112(a) for non-enablement as set forth in the last Office action because: the facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue. The document does not refer to the invention at all and appears to be a research paper describing aerodynamic principles using various equations.
Regarding efficiencies, page 8, lines 6-8 describe an estimated calculation of efficiency for a wind turbine. The manufacturer stated the efficiency was 0.47, the theoretical Betz’s limit is 0.593, and the calculated efficiency is 0.47/0.593 ≈ 0.8. It is unclear if the applicant is using this definition to calculate the efficiency of their invention.
The second affidavit is titled “Experimental Description: Measuring Wind Energy Harvesting Efficiency”. This affidavit is also insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon 35 USC 112(a) for non-enablement as set forth in the last Office action because: the facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue. The document does not refer to the invention at all and rather describes Newton’s 3rd law and then provides a schematic for a different type of wind turbine system which is not the claimed invention. The system includes a fan and a wind turbine where the fan blows air toward the wind turbine.
It is unclear to the examiner whether these documents were intended to be affidavits traversing the rejections or merely non-patent literature which was intended to be considered. If this was non-patent literature, then it should be re-submitted using an IDS.
Claims Status
Claims 1-5 are currently pending. Claims 2 and 5 stand withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are currently being examined.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 2, 2026. These drawings are unacceptable. The drawings do not include the “Replacement Sheet” label and do not correct all of the previous drawing objections. The drawings will not be entered, and new replacement drawings are required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the embodiment comprising the air turbine, vertical axis wind engine, and additional wind engine of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The examiner recommends adding reference numbers identifying each of the wind turbines/air engines in Figures 8a or 8b.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Page 8, lines 1-2 refer to Figure 1 as “a typical overhead horizontal axis wind engine with 3 blades” which suggests the Figure is prior art and not the applicant’s invention.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification filed February 2, 2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: the both the marked and clean copies of the specification include versions of the claims with changes which are inconsistent with the claims. Specifically, the claims appear to attempt to cancel claims 2 and 5, and then re-number claims 3 and 4. These changes are not permitted during prosecution, and also are inconsistent with the filed amended claims.
The previous objections to the specification from the previous Office action will be repeated below:
Page 2, line 24 recites an equation, and it appears the notations are incorrect and may cause confusion. Specifically, the expression (2,5 ÷ 3,5) appears to intend to mean a range from 2.5 to 3.5. The commas should be changed to decimal points, and the division symbol should be changed to a hyphen to clarify the equation.
The examiner notes there are several instances in the specification where the division symbol is used and should be changed in each instance. Page 3, lines 14 and 23, page 4, lines 7 and 15, and page 6, line 4. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant review the specification to ensure each instance has been correct.
Page 6, line 7 recites “using the said wind engine” and the words “the” and “said” are redundant and one should be deleted.
Page 9, lines 1-2 describe “a vertical axis wind engine 17” as being “arranged in horizontal direction”, however the descriptions are contradictory which creates confusion. The defining feature of a vertical axis wind turbine is the rotation about the vertical axis. By arranging the wind turbine in the horizontal direction, the applicant has created a horizontal axis wind turbine. If the applicant was referring to a specific type of vertical axis wind turbine (such as a Savonius wind turbine or Darrieus wind turbine), then the specification should have used that terminology. Otherwise, the language is unclear and causes confusion. Adding such terminology now would be considered new matter unfortunately since it was not part of the original disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 1-2 recite “wherein the air turbine is an air turbine arranged in the horizontal direction” which raises multiple issues. First, re-introducing “an air turbine” is unnecessary and creates confusion. Second, “the horizontal direction” lacks proper antecedent basis. The examiner recommends re-wording the limitation to “wherein the air turbine is arranged in a horizontal direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, and 4 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 is non-enabling because one having ordinary skill in the art could not make or use the invention from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. An analysis of the Wands factors reveals that the following factors weigh against enablement: the state of the prior art, the nature of the invention, the amount of direction provided by the inventor, and the quantity of experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP §2164.01(a). It is noted that the determination of undue experimentation is reached by weighing all the factors and that no single factor is dispositive (MPEP §2164.01(a)).
Claim 1 is directed to a method of harvesting wind energy which uses a “high efficiency air turbine”. Page 7, lines 10-12 of the applicant’s specification define “high efficiency” as 80% efficiency and states the applicant’s wind engine is “~10 times higher than that of a traditional overhead wind engine solution of the same power”.
The nature of the invention is a wind turbine system which relies upon wind to rotate blades, which rotates a shaft of a generator to produce electrical power. Ultimately, wind energy is transformed into mechanical energy, which is transformed into electrical energy. In the field of wind turbines, the theoretical limit for wind turbine efficiency has been determined as Betz’s law (also known as Betz’s limit) which has a maximum of 59.3% efficiency. The applicant has stated their invention has 80% efficiency, and it is unclear how this is being achieved. The applicant has not described any specific structural features of the air turbine which achieve the “high efficiency”.
The examiner notes page 5, line 26 through page 6, line 5 of the applicant’s specification describe a “blade wind-catch efficiency” which “is determined on the basis of the wind component that can bring the rotation mechanical energy to the blade, not on the basis of the total wind absorbed by the blade like Betz’s method”. The difference between the different definitions is unclear. The blade “absorbing” the wind is what causes the blade to rotate and generate the mechanical energy, and thus the definitions appear to have the same meaning as best the examiner understands them. The examiner respectfully requests further clarification regarding this definition.
While the Betz’s limit is a theoretical value of 59.3%, the state of the prior art shows the actual efficiencies of wind turbines do not even reach this value. US 2014/0227094 to Xie states the efficiency of a horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT) is typically around 35% (paragraph 2), while the efficiency of a vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT) is between 5% and 10% for a Savonius type wind turbine or 30% for a Darrieus type wind turbine (paragraph 4).
Regarding the amount of direction provided by the inventor, upon review of the applicant’s specification, there does not appear to be any examples of a high efficiency wind turbine. None of the written description describes the structure of such a wind turbine. The Figures are schematic in nature and do not show the details of the structure of the high efficiency turbines. Figures 7, 8, and 9 only show boxes labelled with reference numbers referring to the wind turbines. Figure 5b is a picture of a steam turbine. At best, Figure 5a schematically shows wind passing through a vertical axis wind turbine. The examiner notes page 10, lines 23-27 state “the wind engine can be of any type provided that it could have the highest efficiency (i.e. over 80%)” which suggests the applicant has multiple designs of wind turbines which are over 80% efficiency. The examiner respectfully requests further clarification regarding the designs of the high efficiency wind turbines.
The description of the air turbine exceeding the theoretical limit and the lack of a description of the designs of the high efficiency air turbine would require one having ordinary skill in the art to perform undue experimentation in order to make and use the invention.
Upon the weight of all of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled by the originally filed disclosure to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation and therefore claim 1 is not enabled.
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 and contain its limitations and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3, lines 4-5 similarly add “a vertical axis wind engine with a high efficiency ~80%” which renders the claim non-enabled for the same reason.
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, 3, and 4 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.
Claim 1, lines 1-2 refer to the invention as “a method…with an equipment system for indirectly catching wind” and it is unclear what is meant by “indirectly”. The first step of the method is “collecting overhead wind”, which is performed by “an overhead wind catcher”. It is unclear how this could be done “indirectly” instead of directly. The applicant has not provided a special definition of the word “indirectly”, thus the word is currently interpreted using the plain and ordinary meaning of “not direct; deviating from a direct line or course” (definition 1a from merriam-webster).
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
As best understood by the examiner, the invention relies upon directly capturing the wind, such as the arrows at the tops of Figures 4a, 4b, or 6c. The examiner respectfully requests clarification of what the applicant intends the term to mean. The examiner recommends removing the word “indirectly” to clarify the description of the invention.
Claim 1, line 7 also refers to “indirectly” catching the wind which renders the claim indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 1, line 14 recites “a high efficiency air turbine”, and as explained above, it is unclear if an air turbine having a “high efficiency” as the applicant has defined it is possible. It is unclear what the applicant means by “high efficiency”. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as requiring “an air turbine”.
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 and includes its limitations, and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3, line 3 states “the air exit chamber is removed”. Claim 1 was amended to remove the limitation “optionally an air exit chamber”, so an “air exit chamber” is not present in the claimed invention at all. The limitation of claim 3 is confusing for attempting to remove a feature which is not present. The examiner recommends removing this limitation.
Claim 3, lines 4-5 refer to a “high efficiency ~80%” vertical axis wind engine. As stated above, it is unclear what the applicant means by “high efficiency”. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as requiring a vertical axis wind engine.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and contains its limitations, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 4, lines 2-3 recite “an additional wind engine of the vertical axis principle but being arranged in the horizontal direction”. The description is self-contradictory and confusing. The defining feature of a vertical axis wind turbine is the rotation about the vertical axis. Upon arranging the wind turbine in the horizontal direction, the wind turbine is a horizontal axis wind turbine. It appears the applicant intends for “the vertical axis principle” to mean specific types of turbines (such as a Savonius wind turbine or a Darrieus wind turbine), however neither the claim nor specification describe the scope of turbines which have the “vertical axis principle”. For the purpose of examination, claim 4 will be treated as having an additional wind engine which is arranged in the horizontal direction.
Any and all claims rejected above under 35 USC 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 35 USC 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,294,013 to Allaei in view of US 2016/0369646 to Hendrix.
In Reference to Claim 1
Allaei teaches:
A method of harvesting overhead wind energy with an equipment system for indirectly catching wind, the method comprising:
collecting overhead wind (system “receives the wind”, column 2, lines 53-55);
guiding the collected overhead wind downwards (“delivers accelerated wind”, column 2, lines 55-56);
converting the energy of the collected wind into mechanical work to rotate one or more generators (720, see Figure 7) (“energy-extraction section that may include an energy extractor”, column 2, lines 55-58, electrical generator 720, column 6, lines 40-43);
wherein the equipment system for indirectly catching the overhead-wind comprises:
an overhead wind catcher (nozzle assembly 120) with a flared inlet (upstream end of nozzle assembly) and a narrow outlet (downstream end of nozzle assembly) to increase velocity of the overhead wind collected and guided downwards;
a tail vane (494) attached to the overhead wind catcher to orientate the overhead wind catcher towards a direction of the overhead wind;
a wind duct (125) to guide the collected overhead wind downwards;
an air turbine (710, see Figure 7); and
an operation station (building 100, see Figure 2) on the ground to encompass at least one part of the air turbine (see column 4, lines 4-14, column 4, lines 37-56, column 6, lines 40-67, and Figures 2, 4, and 7).
Allaei fails to teach:
A windbreak cover.
Hendrix teaches:
A wind energy system (10) comprising a wind break cover (doors 24) and an air turbine (37) (see paragraphs 122 and 123, and Figures 1, 2a, and 2b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allaei by adding a wind break cover as taught by Hendrix as both references are directed to air turbines having overhead wind catchers, and for the purpose of being able to close the overhead wind catcher in the event of a heavy storm (paragraph 22 of Hendrix).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,294,013 to Allaei as modified by US 2016/0369646 to Hendrix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,398,096 to Faurholtz and US 11,313,348 to Yu.
In Reference to Claim 3
Allaei as modified by Hendrix teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the air turbine is an air turbine arranged in a horizontal direction, the equipment system further comprises a wind deflector elbow (not numbered, see annotated Figure 2 below) (see Figure 2 of Allaei) so that the wind can self-exit in a specified direction (toward the outlet of the air turbine).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allaei as modified by Hendrix fails to teach:
The equipment system also further comprises a vertical axis wind engine arranged right behind the air turbine to take advantage of the energy of low velocity wind.
Faurholtz teaches:
A wind energy system comprising an air turbine (14) and a wind engine (32) arranged right behind the air turbine to take advantage of the energy of low velocity wind (see column 4, lines 10-19, column 5, lines 21-23, and Figure 1).
Yu teaches:
A wind energy system comprising a wind engine which is a vertical axis wind engine (VAWT) which takes advantage of the energy of low velocity wind (see column 1, lines 51-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allaei as modified by Hendrix by adding a wind engine right behind the air turbine to take advantage of the energy of low velocity wind as taught by Faurholtz as both references are directed to wind energy systems, and for the purpose of generating additional energy from low velocity wind.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allaei as modified by Hendrix and Faurholtz by replacing the low-wind speed, horizontal axis wind engine with a low-wind speed, vertical axis wind engine as taught by Yu as both references are directed to wind energy systems, and which is a simple substitution of one type of known wind energy system with another well-known type of wind energy system, which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a vertical axis wind turbine which is positioned downstream of the air turbine and captures low energy wind.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,294,013 to Allaei as modified by US 2016/0369646 to Hendrix, US 4,398,096 to Faurholtz and US 11,313,348 to Yu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 299,127 to Garrigus.
In Reference to Claim 4
Allaei as modified by Hendrix, Faurholtz, and Yu teaches:
The method of claim 3 comprising the wind deflector elbow.
Allaei as modified by Hendrix, Faurholtz, and Yu fails to teach:
The equipment system further comprises an additional wind engine which is arranged in the horizontal direction on an axis, just above the wind deflector elbow.
Garrigus teaches:
A wind energy system comprising an overhead wind catcher (funnel C’), a wind duct (A), and a wind engine (B) which is arranged in the horizontal direction on an axis (axis of rotation), just above a wind deflector elbow (bottom of chamber containing wind engine B) (see column 1, line 28 through column 2, line 70 and the Figure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allaei as modified by Hendrix, Faurholtz, and Yu by adding an additional wind engine which is arranged in the horizontal direction on an axis, just above the wind deflector elbow as taught by Garrigus as both references are directed to wind energy systems, and for the purpose of generating additional energy.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745