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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is in response to the papers filed 08/08/2024 for Application No. 18/798,030. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on 08/08/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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 limitation - -wherein the housing, with the at least one rotor arranged therein, comprises coupling parts with which it is designed to be reversibly detachable from the electric generator- - in claims 13 and 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “characterized in that the first rotor has a larger diameter than each of the wheels with which the vehicle is driven” is unclear. Figures 1-6 appear to show that either the diameter of the first or second rotor is large as the diameter of the fan/turbine device. Therefore, it is not possible for the diameter of the rotor to be greater than each driven wheel of the vehicle. However, it appears that the diameter of the first rotor can be larger than the drive axle of each driven wheel. Further explanation is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luan et al. (CN 109606126A, from IDS filed 08/08/2024, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Luan discloses a device for converting air currents into electrical energy on board an electric vehicle (see figs. 1-2; machine translation attached), comprising:
a housing defining an internal volume (para. [0008], i.e., housing of impact section 2);
at least one rotor (para. [0010], i.e., one of fan shafts of fans 4) arranged in the internal volume (2);
at least one air inlet in fluid (1) communication with the internal volume for the introduction of a relative airflow against a direction of travel of the vehicle (fig. 2);
at least one air outlet (3) in fluid communication with the internal volume for the outlet of the air stream (fig. 1B); and
an electric generator (paras. [0009], [0032], [0036], i.e., generator shown in figs. 1-2) arranged to convert kinetic energy of the at least one rotor into electrical energy,
wherein the device is designed to be built in behind the grille within a dead space under the front cover of an electric vehicle (shown in fig. 2),
wherein the at least one rotor comprises a first rotor (i.e., fan shaft of fans 4) provided with rotor blades (para. [0010]) having a first axis (i.e., axis of one of the fan shafts of fans 4) of rotation which, in use, is substantially vertical to the direction of travel of the vehicle, and in which the at least one inlet comprises a first air inlet (1) configured to direct a frontal airflow on the vehicle to a first lateral segment of the internal volume (2).
Regarding claim 2, Luan discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one rotor also comprises a second rotor (fig. 1B; para. [0010], i.e., the other fan shaft of fans 4) with a second rotational axis parallel to the first rotational axis (i.e., axis of the other fan shaft), and wherein the first and second rotor are of non-concentric design within the housing (fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 6, Luan discloses the device according to claim 2, wherein the first and second rotor are co-rotating in opposite directions (fig. 1B, i.e., left and right fans 4 rotor rotate in opposite directions to the right and right outlets 3, respectively).
Regarding claim 9, Luan discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one air inlet converges towards the housing (fig. 1B, i.e., inlet 1 converges towards housing of impact section or housing chamber 2), and
wherein the at least one air outlet diverges towards the housing (fig. 1B, i.e., air stream diverges towards left and right outlets 3, respectively).
Regarding claim 12, Luan discloses the device according to claim 1, designed to be connected to a cooling system of the electric vehicle (this limitation is not positively recited; however, it is inherent that the electric vehicle includes a cooling device/system (e.g., a radiator, an A/C unit or a fan to blow cooling fluid, to cool a power device/unit or the vehicle passenger compartment), such as a cooling water system for the electric motor and/or battery of the vehicle, to transfer heat to a part of the device during use.
Regarding claim 13, Luan discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the housing, with the at least one rotor arranged therein, comprises coupling parts (para. [0014], i.e., a gear structure) with which it is designed to be reversibly detachable from:
the at least one air inlet (1); and
the at least one air outlet (3).
Regarding claim 15, Luan discloses the vehicle according to claim 14, wherein the at least one air outlet debouches to one or more lateral sides of the nose of the vehicle (figs. 1B/1C).
Regarding claim 17, Luan discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the housing, with the at least one rotor arranged therein (figs. 1-2), comprises coupling parts (para. [0014], e.g., reducer 6) with which it is designed to be reversibly detachable from the electric generator (paras. [0009] and [0026], i.e., upper/lower shaft of reducer 6 are connected/connectable to the generator).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2008/075600A, from IDS filed 08/08/2024).
Regarding claim 3, Luan discloses the device according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach the at least one air inlet includes a second frontal air inlet.
Suzuki discloses an on-vehicle wind power generator includes a wind turbine 31, a lower air intake leading opening 9a and an upper intake air opening 9b for proving sufficient airflow form the vehicle to be supplied to the blades of the wind turbine 31. See Figures 1, 11-12 and 15.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Luan, with reasonable expectation of success, to have a second air inlet configured to direct a frontal airflow on the vehicle to a second lateral segment, different from the first segment of the internal volume in order to effectively controlling the inlet air flowing into the turbine device under various traveling speeds and operation conditions thereby improving power generation performance. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to comprise more than one front air inlet, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies ** in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" ** >projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. <The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Smith (US 8,436,485 B1) and further in view of Spencer et al. (US 2022/0355672).
Regarding claim 14, Luan discloses an electric vehicle (fig. 2) includes the device according to claim 1, further includes the energy recovery device (fig. 1) located in the front of the electric vehicle, recovers the energy of wind impact pressure at the front of the vehicle and converts it into electrical energy to extend the electric vehicle’s range (para. [0017]) but does not specifically disclose a front grille, a battery and an inverter.
Smith discloses a wind powered turbine device for motor vehicles includes an inverter 63 electrically connected to a rechargeable battery 48. See Figures 1-3 and 5-6; col. 7, line 64 – col. 8, line 14; col. 8, lines 53 – 67.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Luan, with reasonable expectation of success, to have a battery and inverter to, in use, store the electrical energy generated by the device in said battery in order to provide a properly voltage generated by the electric energy recovery device and safely stored in the battery unit such that the electric vehicle’s driving range can be improved. Moreover, it is inherent and well recognized to a skilled person in the art to have inverter(s) and battery in electric vehicles for providing a proper voltage and driving power between the drive electric motor(s) and the battery unit such that high risk of overcharging and overheating can be avoided. The electric vehicle of Luan will be inoperative without a battery and an inverter for properly controlling the voltage flows to and from the electric motor/generator and the battery unit during operation.
Further, as modified above, Luan discloses an electric vehicle (fig. 2) but does not specifically teach a front grille.
Spencer discloses an electric vehicle wind turbine system for electric vehicles includes a front grille (fig. 1) with a dead space (fig. 1; paras. [0028], [0029] and [0032], i.e., where the wind turbine system is built/mounted) behind under a front cover of the electric vehicle (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for modified device of Luan, with reasonable expectation of success, to include a front grille with a dead space behind under a front cover of the electric vehicle for the purpose of safely mounting the energy recovery device and prevent large foreign debris to enter the device and/or control the aerodynamic flows during operation.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood and modified, Luan discloses the vehicle according to claim 14 but does not specifically teach that the first rotor has a larger diameter than each of the wheels.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for modified device of Luan, with reasonable expectation of success, to have the first rotor diameter larger than each of the wheels with which the vehicle is driven as matter of design choice. The advantage of having larger diameter rotor would improve the service life of the device and for reliability purpose. Since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and shape of the gears is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the device according to claim 3 and in combination with the remaining features recited.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the device according to claim 3 and in combination with the remaining features recited.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the device according to claim 1 and in combination with the remaining features recited.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the device according to claim 2 and in combination with the remaining features recited.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the device according to claim 1 and in combination with the remaining features recited.
Claim 7 is allowable as being dependent upon the allowable base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi (JP 2017/078336 A, machine translation attached) discloses a wind power generation automobile includes two fan rotors, see Figures 1-4;
Zhan (CN 203,697,978 U, machine translation attached) discloses a wind power generation device of electric vehicle includes two electric generators connected to a fan rotor, see Figure 3;
Hassan (US 2011/0309786 A1) discloses a green electric vehicle utilizing multiple sources of energy includes a fan rotor connected to a generator 35 and two air inlets 18, see Figure 2;
Bernard (US 5,850,108 A) discloses a fluid power generation system with foil with two fan rotors 17, see Figures 1-4; and
Pena (US 5,680,032 A) discloses a win-powered battery charging system includes two turbines 23, see Figures 1-5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tinh T Dang whose telephone number is (571)270-1776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at Mon-Friday from 8AM-4:30PM at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/TINH T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights