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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130045080 A1 to Kirke in view of US 20100001525 A1 to Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Kirke discloses a turbine comprising:
a blade support (Fig. 1: 14) configured to rotate about a central axis (16); and
two or more turbine blades (12) secured to the blade support (14) and configured to orbit the central axis (16) during rotation of the blade support around the central axis, wherein each of the two or more turbine blades:
includes a first edge opposed to a second edge, wherein the first edge is rounded (Fig. 1(a): leading edge) and the second edge is sharp (trailing edge) relative to the first edge, and
includes first and second sides that extend between the first and second edges (left and right sides of the leading and trailing edges),
is configured to pivot relative to the blade support about a pivot axis (17) that is offset from the central axis (16).
However, it fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first and second sides includes a hook shaped recess.
Yang teaches wherein at least one of the first and second sides includes a hook shaped recess (Figs. 5A-5B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the hook shaped blades as disclosed by Yang to the blades disclosed by Kirke.
One would have been motivated to do so to produce a highly efficient vertical wind turbine. Refer to Yang, [0002].
Regarding claim 2, Kirke discloses a cross-section of a portion of each of the two or more turbine blades defines a wedge shape that expands from the second edge toward the first edge (Fig. 1a: 12 from trailing edge to leading edge).
Regarding claim 3, Kirke discloses a thickness of each of the two or more turbine blades increases in a direction from the second edge toward the first edge (Fig. 1a: 12 from trailing edge to leading edge).
Regarding claim 4, Kirke discloses the first and second sides extend between first and second ends of the respective turbine blade, wherein at least one of the first and second ends (Fig. 1: top and bottom of 12) is pivotally secured to the blade support (top and bottom 14).
Regarding claim 5, Kirke discloses the blade support comprises separate first and second blade supports (Fig. 1: top and bottom 14), wherein the first blade support pivotally supports the first end and the second blade support pivotally supports the second end (top and bottom of 12).
Regarding claim 7, Kirke and Yang discloses a turbine as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the hook shaped recess is configured to redirect airflow greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hook shaped recess be configured to redirect airflow greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize efficiency of the vertical wind turbine.
Regarding claim 12, Kirke discloses a rotational stop (Fig. 3a: 36) on each of the two or more turbine blades and configured to limit pivotal rotation of the respective turbine blade about the pivot axis.
Regarding claim 13, Kirke discloses the pivot axis (Fig. 1: 17) is parallel to the central axis (16).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kirke and Yang discloses the hook shaped recess is on the second side, wherein a chord line of each turbine blade connects points on the first and second edges furthest from one another, wherein a surface of the hook shaped recess is disposed on the opposite side of the chord line as the first side of the respective turbine blade (Yang, Figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 16, Kirke discloses a cross-section of each of the two or more turbine blades is symmetrical (Fig. 1a: 12).
Regarding claim 18, Kirke discloses a turbine comprising:
a blade support (Fig. 1: 14) configured to rotate about a central axis (16); and
two or more turbine blades (12) secured to the blade support (14) and configured to orbit the central axis (16) during rotation of the blade support around the central axis, wherein each of the two or more turbine blades:
is configured to pivot relative to the blade support about a pivot axis (17) that is offset from the central axis (16),
includes a first edge that is rounded (Fig. 1(a): leading edge) and a second edge, opposed to the first edge, that is sharp (trailing edge) relative to the first edge, and
includes first and second sides that extend between the first and second edges (left and right sides of the leading and trailing edges).
However, it fails to disclose wherein the first side includes a surface that bows away from a chord line that extends from the first edge to the second edge, wherein the second side includes a hook shaped recess.
Yang teaches wherein the first side includes a surface that bows away from a chord line that extends from the first edge to the second edge, wherein the second side includes a hook shaped recess (Figs. 5A-5B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the hook shaped blades as disclosed by Yang to the blades disclosed by Kirke.
One would have been motivated to do so to produce a highly efficient vertical wind turbine. Refer to Yang, [0002].
Regarding claim 19, Kirke discloses a wind turbine (title).
Regarding claim 20, Kirke discloses a water turbine (title).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130045080 A1 to Kirke in view of US 20100001525 A1 to Yang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of WO 2011075833 A1 to Ireland.
Regarding claim 6, Kirke and Yang discloses a turbine as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the at least one of the first and second sides that includes the hook shaped recess includes one or more ribs that divide the hook shaped recess into separate cavities.
Ireland teaches the at least one of the first and second sides that includes the hook shaped recess includes one or more ribs (Fig. 2: 27b) that divide the hook shaped recess into separate cavities (20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the ribs as disclosed by Ireland to the blades disclosed by Kirke and Yang.
One would have been motivated to do so to improve the structural integrity of the blades.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130045080 A1 to Kirke in view of US 20100001525 A1 to Yang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 4180367 A to Drees.
Regarding claims 8-9, Kirke and Yang discloses a turbine as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the limitations from claims 8-9.
Drees teaches:
the pivot axis (Fig. 2A: 27) is offset from a center of mass (28) of the respective turbine blade.
the pivot axis (27) is disposed between the first edge (leading edge) and a center of mass (28) of the respective turbine blade.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the pivot axis location as disclosed by Drees to the blades disclosed by Kirke and Yang.
One would have been motivated to do so to improve pivot rotation.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130045080 A1 to Kirke in view of US 20100001525 A1 to Yang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 4274809 A to Delgado et al.
Regarding claims 10-11, Kirke and Yang discloses a turbine as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the limitations from claims 10-11.
Delgado et al. teaches:
a control spring configured to bias pivotal rotation of the turbine blade about the pivot axis in a first direction, wherein orbital movement of the turbine blade around the central axis is configured to bias pivotal rotation of the turbine blade in a second direction about the pivot axis opposite from the first direction (column 3, lines 30-48).
a spring constant of the control spring is configured to prevent pivotal rotation of the turbine blade about the pivot axis unless a speed of the orbital movement of the turbine blade around the central axis exceeds a predefined threshold (column 3, lines 30-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the spring as disclosed by Delgado et al. to the turbine disclosed by Kirke and Yang.
One would have been motivated to do so to improve startup rotation of the turbine.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130045080 A1 to Kirke in view of US 20100001525 A1 to Yang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 20090167030 A1 to Watkins.
Regarding claim 15, Kirke and Yang discloses a turbine as described above.
However, it fails to disclose both the first and second sides each include separate hook shaped recesses.
Watkins teaches both the first and second sides each include separate hook shaped recesses (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the double hook shaped blades as disclosed by Watkins to the blades disclosed by Kirke and Yang.
One would have been motivated to do so to further improve efficiency of vertical wind turbine. Refer to Watkins, abstract.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130045080 A1 to Kirke in view of US 20090167030 A1 to Watkins.
Regarding claim 17, Kirke discloses a turbine comprising:
a blade support (Fig. 1: 14) configured to rotate about a central axis (16); and
two or more turbine blades (12) secured to the blade support (14) and configured to orbit the central axis (16) during rotation of the blade support around the central axis, wherein each of the two or more turbine blades:
is configured to pivot relative to the blade support about a pivot axis (17) that is offset from the central axis (16),
includes a first edge that is rounded (Fig. 1(a): leading edge) and a second edge, opposed to the first edge, that is sharp (trailing edge) relative to the first edge, and
includes first and second sides that extend between the first and second edges (left and right sides of the leading and trailing edges).
However, it fails to disclose wherein each of the first and second sides includes a hook shaped recess.
Watkins teaches wherein each of the first and second sides includes a hook shaped recess (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the double hook shaped blades as disclosed by Watkins to the blades disclosed by Kirke.
One would have been motivated to do so to improve efficiency of vertical wind turbine. Refer to Watkins, abstract.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument of Yang and Watkins are incompatible/teach away from Kirke, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues that lift and drag are conflicting operational principles. However, Kirke does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of drag principles. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004), “"the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed””. Therefore, the argument is mere speculation by the Applicant.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues that both would undermine the core operational mechanism. However, the Examiner believes that the core operation of all 3 references is to rotate a vertically mounted rotor in order to generate power.
Finally, in paragraph [0055] of Kirke, Kirke does disclose the use of both lift and drag principles, “Radial arms may also be provided with camber, concave on the upstream side so as to generate forward torque by lift on unstalled arms moving upstream, and by drag on the stalled arms facing downstream”.
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 VIET P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8.
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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/VIET P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834