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, see page 6, filed on May 6, 2026, with respect to minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The objection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed on May 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 11, 13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,360,791 to P. C. Putnam.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed on May 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,360,791 to P. C. Putnam.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,080,100 to McNeese in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,360,791 to P. C. Putnam.
McNeese clearly teaches a Wind Motor, comprising:
a first turbine rotor (300) mounted on a first turbine shaft (270); and
a second turbine rotor (200) mounted on a second turbine shaft (250);
wherein:
the first turbine shaft is rotatable about a rotational axis and the second turbine shaft is rotatable in the opposite direction about the same rotational axis (see Figure 7);
the first turbine rotor comprises at least one first turbine blade (336) extending in an outwards direction from the first turbine shaft;
the second turbine rotor comprises at least one second turbine blade (226) extending in an outwards direction from the second turbine shaft;
the at least one first turbine blade forms a first blade angle relative to the first turbine shaft and the at least one second turbine blade forms a second blade angle relative to the second turbine shaft, the first blade angle and the second blade angle both being acute when the wind turbine is operating (see Figure 7).
However, it fails to disclose the contra-rotating wind turbine being configured so that the rotational axis is inclined relative to the direction of the wind, when the wind turbine is operating.
Putnam discloses a Wind Turbine comprising:
a nacelle (C) containing platform (13), generator (G), and shaft (18), all being configured so that the rotational axis is inclined relative to the direction of the wind (arrows in Figure 1), when the wind turbine is operating.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the inclination disclosed by Putnam for the wind motor disclosed by McNeese, for the purpose of reducing tower oscillations.
With regards to claim 2, McNeese discloses:
the rotational axis forms an acute angle with a horizontal plane when the wind turbine is operating (see Figure 7).
With regards to claim 3, McNeese discloses:
the at least one first turbine blade and the at least one second turbine blade swipe respective conically shaped areas when they are rotating about the rotational axis.
With regards to claim 4, McNeese discloses:
the first turbine rotor, in operation, swipes a first swept area and the second turbine rotor, in operation, swipes a second swept area; and
the first turbine rotor and the second turbine rotor are configured so that the first swept area and the second swept area are substantially non-overlapping when the rotational axis is vertical.
With regards to claim 5, McNeese discloses:
the at least one first turbine blade and the at least one second turbine blade are arranged so that the at least one first turbine blade and the at least one second turbine rotor are substantially vertical when the second blade tip is at a vertically highest position of its rotational path.
With regards to claim 6, McNeese discloses:
the at least one first turbine blade being mounted or attached to the first turbine shaft with a first connecting device (334); and
the at least one second turbine blade is mounted to the second turbine shaft with a second connecting device (224).
With regards to claim 11, McNeese discloses:
the at least one first wind turbine blade being airfoil-shaped (see Figures 5 and 6); and/or
the at least one second wind turbine blade is airfoil-shaped (see Figures 5 and 6).
With regards to claim 13, McNeese discloses:
a swept area of the first wind turbine rotor being 0-20% larger than a swept area of the second turbine rotor (see Figure 7).
With regards to claim McNeese, 19 discloses:
the length of the at least one first turbine blade is larger than the diameter of the first turbine shaft (see Figure 7); and
the length of the at least one second turbine blade is larger than the diameter of the second turbine shaft (see Figure 7).
With regards to claim 20, McNeese discloses:
the at least one first turbine blade comprises a plurality of first blade segments which are connected or attached to each other and/or the at least one second turbine blade comprises a plurality of second blade segments which are connected or attached to each other.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,080,100 to McNeese in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,360,791 to P. C. Putnam as applied to claims 1-6, 11, 13, 19, and 20 above, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0172759 A1 to Sullivan.
McNeese in view of Putnam clearly teaches a Wind Motor as described in paragraph 9 above.
However, it fails to disclose the first connecting device being configured to allow adjustment of the first blade angle and/or the second connecting device being configured to allow adjustment of the second blade angle.
Sullivan discloses Retractable Wind Turbines, comprising:
a first connecting device (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15) being configured to allow adjustment of a first blade angle; and/or
a second connecting device (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15) is configured to allow adjustment of the second blade angle.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the connecting device configuration disclosed by Sullivan on the connecting device of the blades of the wind motor disclosed by McNeese in view of Putnam, for the purpose of allowing the deployment and retraction of the blades of the wind turbine.
With regards to claim 9, Sullivan discloses:
the first blade angle can be adjusted so that it is less than 70 degrees and larger than 20 degrees (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15); and/or
the second blade angle can be adjusted so that it is less than 70 degrees and larger than 20 degrees (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15).
With regards to claim 10, Sullivan discloses:
the first blade angle can be adjusted so that it is less than 50 degrees and larger than 40 degrees (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15); and/or
the second blade angle can be adjusted so that it is less than 50 degrees and larger than 40 degrees (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15).
With regards to claim 12, Sullivan discloses:
the first turbine rotor comprises at least one first support arm (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15) which is mounted to the first turbine blade and to the first turbine shaft; and
the second turbine rotor comprises at least one second support arm (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15) which is mounted to the second turbine blade and to the second turbine shaft.
With regards to claim 14, Sullivan discloses:
the at least one first support arm being airfoil-shaped (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15); and/or
the at least one second support arm is airfoil-shaped (see Figures 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15).
With regards to claim 15, Sullivan discloses:
the at least one first support arm and/or the at least one second support arm is provided with a motion damper device (19; see Figures 4 and 5).
With regards to claim 16, Sullivan discloses:
the at least one first turbine blade is provided with a first winglet mounted to a tip portion of the at least one first turbine blade (see Figures 4, 6, 10, and 11); and/or
the at least one second turbine blade is provided with a second winglet mounted to a tip portion of the at least one second turbine blade (see Figures 4, 6, 10, and 11).
With regards to claim 17, Sullivan discloses:
the first winglet being adjustably mounted to the at least one first turbine blade (see Figures 4, 6, 10, and 11); and/or
the second winglet is adjustably mounted to the at least one second turbine blade (see Figures 4, 6, 10, and 11).
With regards to claim 18, Sullivan discloses:
the first winglet being airfoil-shaped (see Figures 4, 6, 10, and 11); and/or
the second winglet is airfoil-shaped (see Figures 4, 6, 10, and 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest a contra-rotating wind turbine as recited by dependent claim 8, wherein:
the first blade angle and the second blade angle are adjustable independently of each other.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PEDRO J CUEVAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2021. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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 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.
/PEDRO J CUEVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 December 18, 2025
Prosecution Insights