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, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2 and 3 of claim 4 appear to contain a typographical error with regard to the phrase “disposed in an upper of the receptacle.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of claim 9 recites “at least one coil stator,” however, the recitation appears to be the result of a typographical error. The limitation will be treated as if it require at least one stator coil. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9-12 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 9 recites the limitation "the conical structure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10-12 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 6,302,778) in view of Burkett (US 8,368,240).
Regarding claim 1, Andrews discloses a venting apparatus (abstract) for generating electricity (C2/L65-67), the apparatus comprising a head (C3/L36; 12 in Fig. 1) and a base (C4/L15, C4/L61), wherein the head includes a receptacle (area between 26 and 44 in Fig. 1 satisfies the limitation requiring a receptacle) in which is disposed a solar cell (C4/L58; 70 in Fig. 1), and a plurality of blades (C3/L48) disposed around a periphery of the head (30 in Fig. 1) for rotating the head in response to airflow around the head (C4/L11; 30 in Fig. 2).
Andrews does not explicitly disclose rotation of the head relative to the base generates electricity.
Burkett discloses a venting apparatus for generating electricity (abstract), the apparatus comprising a head (C4/L28 – turbine) and a base (C4/L32 – base 5), whereby rotation of the head relative to the base generates electricity (C5/L37-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an electrical generator, as disclosed by Burkett, in the venting apparatus of Andrews, because as taught by Burkett, the system can be used to heat or cool a building while generating electricity (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Andrews further discloses the receptacle is a generally conical structure (Andrews - area between 26 and 44 in Fig. 1 satisfies the limitation requiring a generally conical structure).
It is noted that if the area between 26 and 44 in Fig. 1 of Andrews is not in the shape of a generally conical structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the receptacle of modified Andrews into a generally conical shape because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Andrews further discloses the blades are disposed around a periphery of the conical structure (Andrews – 30 in Fig. 1 in relation to 26 and 44).
Regarding claim 5, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above. Modified Andrews further discloses the solar cell is configured to output electricity (Andrews – C4/L59).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “with heat being generated as a by-product,” heat is necessarily generated during operation of a solar cell configured to output electricity, and the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 6, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Andrews further discloses the receptacle has a plurality of circumferentially spaced openings formed in an upper portion thereof (Andrews – 68 in Fig. 1; C4/L54-55 disclose projecting ribs on the top of the hood to catch the wind. The disclosed projecting ribs necessarily form openings which satisfy the limitation “circumferentially spaced.”)
With regard to the limitation “through which thermal heat can escape,” it is noted that the limitation does not specify the location from which the thermal heat is escaping from. The openings between the projecting ribs of modified Andrews have the capability to allow thermal heat to flow, and the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 7, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Andrews does not explicitly disclose the openings are positioned so that air exiting the openings is directed to the blades to cause rotation of the head.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the projecting ribs of modified Andrews (Andrews - 68 in Fig. 1; C4/L54-55) such that air exiting the openings between the projecting ribs is directed to the blades to cause rotation of the head, because modification of the shape of the projecting ribs of modified Andrew would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Andrews further discloses an energy conversion device for converting rotational energy of the head into electrical energy (Burkett - C5/L37-39 discloses an electrical generator).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 6,302,778) in view of Burkett (US 8,368,240) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lozzi (US 2020/0153378).
Regarding claim 4, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified Andrews does not explicitly disclose a convex lens, a Fresnel lens, or combinations thereof, disposed in an upper of the receptacle for focusing sunlight onto the solar cell.
Lozzi discloses an integrated wind-photovoltaic system for the production of electrical energy (abstract) and further discloses a Fresnel lens for focusing sunlight onto a solar cell ([0047]; 5 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a Fresnel lens, as disclosed by Lozzi, in the upper portion of the receptacle of modified Andrews (Andrews - C4/L56-57), because as taught By Lozzi, the concentration Fresnel lenses have a factor of sunlight concentration between 40 and 60x ([0020]).
Additionally, as evidenced by Lozzi, the use of a Fresnel lens to concentrate sunlight in an integrated wind-photovoltaic system for the production of electrical energy amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a Fresnel lens in the apparatus of modified Andrews based on the teaching of Lozzi.
Regarding claim 5, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above. Modified Andrews further discloses the solar cell is configured to output electricity (Andrews – C4/L59).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “with heat being generated as a by-product,” heat is necessarily generated during operation of a solar cell configured to output electricity, and the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 6,302,778) in view of Burkett (US 8,368,240) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Caudill (US 2010/0181958).
Regarding claim 9, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified Andrews does not explicitly disclose the energy conversion device
includes at least coil stator and rotor pair.
Caudill discloses a power generation device including a wind turbine and a solar
Cell (abstract), and further discloses a power generator including a rotor in communication with the wind turbine and a stator in rotational communication with a rotor (abstract) within the base (18’ within 42 in Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the energy conversion device of modified Andrews with a rotor and stator, as disclosed by Caudill, because as evidenced by Caudill, including a rotor and stator in the energy conversion device of a wind turbine amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a rotor and stator in the energy conversion device of modified Andrews based on the teaching of Caudill.
Modified Andrews does not explicitly disclose the stator and the rotor disposed at either a junction of the head and base or within the base proximal to a lower-most section of the conical structure, or both.
Caudill discloses the rotor and stator of the energy conversion device of a wind turbine is located within a base (18’ within 42 in Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the rotor and stator of the energy conversion device of modified Andrews within the base, as disclosed by Caudill, because as evidenced by Caudill, placing the rotor and stator of the energy conversion device in the base of a wind turbine amounts to a known arrangement in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when placing the rotor and stator of the energy conversion device of modified Andrews within the base based on the teaching of Caudill. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “proximal to a lower-most section of the conical structure,” the limitation “proximal” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 6,302,778) in view of Burkett (US 8,368,240) further in view of Caudill (US 2010/0181958) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Rodway (GB 2525143A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
While modified Andrews does disclose the rotor is secured to the rotating head (Caudill – [0009]), modified Andrews does not explicitly disclose the rotor includes a pair of spaced apart discs, each disc having a plurality of permanent magnets disposed around a periphery thereof with the magnetic axis of each axis being generally normal to the surface of the disc, the orientation of the magnetic axis of adjacent magnets on each disc alternates, and the orientation of magnets opposing each other on the spaced apart discs is oppositely arranged.
Rodway discloses a generator for a wind turbine (page 1, lines 3 and 4) and further discloses the rotor includes a pair of spaced apart discs (404a and 404b in Fig. 11; page 12, lines 4 and 5), each disc having a plurality of permanent magnets disposed around a periphery thereof with the magnetic axis of each magnet being generally normal to the surface of the disc (410a and 410b in Fig. 11; page 12, line 6), the orientation of the magnetic axis of adjacent magnets on each disc alternates, and the orientation of magnets opposing each other on the spaced apart discs is oppositely arranged (page 12, lines 4 through 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the rotor of modified Andrews such that the rotor includes a pair of spaced apart discs, each disc having a plurality of permanent magnets disposed around a periphery thereof with the magnetic axis of each axis being generally normal to the surface of the disc, the orientation of the magnetic axis of adjacent magnets on each disc alternates, and the orientation of magnets opposing each other on the spaced apart discs is oppositely arranged, as disclosed by Rodway, because as evidenced by Rodway, the configuration amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art for a rotor in a generator of a wind turbine, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the rotor of modified Andrews with the disclosed configuration based on the teaching of Rodway.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 6,302,778) in view of Burkett (US 8,368,240) further in view of Caudill (US 2010/0181958) further in view of Rodway (GB 2525143A) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Borgen et al. (US 2011/0193349).
Regarding claim 11, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Andrews does not explicitly disclose the permanent magnets are mounted on an annular magnetic yoke.
Borgen discloses a wind turbine for the generation of electricity ([0002]) and further discloses permanent magnets ([0026]) mounted on an annular magnetic yoke ([0026],[0061],[0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount the permanent magnets of modified Andrews on an annular magnetic yoke, as disclosed by Borgen, because as evidenced by Borgen, mounting permanent magnets of a rotor on an annular magnetic yoke amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the permanent magnets of modified Andrews on an annular magnetic yoke based on the teaching of Borgen.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 6,302,778) in view of Burkett (US 8,368,240) further in view of Caudill (US 2010/0181958) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Selnes (US 2020/0244149).
Regarding claim 12, modified Andrews discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified Andrews does not explicitly disclose the stator coil is formed of at least one annular board having a plurality of generally spiral shaped windings disposed around a periphery thereof, each winding being connected in series.
Selnes discloses a stator coil used in wind turbines ([0155]) formed of a board ([0304]) having a plurality of windings, each winding being connected in series ([0304]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the stator coil of modified Andrews of a board having a plurality of windings, each winding connected in series, as disclosed by Selnes, because as taught by Selnes, the method of production of the stator or rotor components cut production steps and costs while providing a flexible highly customizable method ([0005]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “annular,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the board of modified Andrews in an annular shape because modification of the shape of the board of modified Andrew would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding the limitation “generally spiral shaped windings disposed around a periphery thereof,” Selnes discloses the winding fibers may have any geometrical form and any size, and the particular geometry and size of the fibers may be based on the desired design of the stator or rotor component, and/or the general requirements of the windings of the electric machine ([0236]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the inventio was filed to form the windings of modified Andrews in a generally spiral shape disposed around a periphery of the annular board because, as taught by Selnes, the winding fibers may have any geometrical form and any size, and the particular geometry and size of the fibers may be based on the desired design of the stator or rotor component, and/or the general requirements of the windings of the electric machine ([0236]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art references Devisch (US 2015/0098828) and Jung (US 2013/0049512) are made of record but not relied upon and are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Devisch discloses an alternator used in a wind turbine, and further discloses magnets are fitted on discs and the flux between the magnets runs parallel to the rotation shaft of the wind turbine and this type of alternator is ideal for generating electricity, even when the speed of rotation of the rotor is low ([0051]).
Jung discloses a generator for wind turbine generators including a rotor coupled rotatably to the shaft and having upper and lower disk-like faces affixed with a plurality of skewed permanent magnets having north-south pole pairs and distantly arranged, an upper stator and a lower stator both having a plurality of slots formed similar to the skewed permanent magnets for taking winding of a coil (abstract). Jung further discloses the N-S pole magnets are mounted fixedly on the opposite surface of rotor 110 so that the N and S poles on the upper surface are opposingly staggered with respect to the N and S poles on the lower surface so that the opposite rotor surfaces as a whole constitute the closed circuit within the magnetic field ([0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights