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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,016,014 A to Grigorescu et al.
Grigorescu et al. clearly teaches a vertical axis wind energy conversion device having panels guided by cardioid rails, comprising:
a supporting body (see Figures 25-28) which is configured to be integrated within a channel (see Figures 17d, 25-28) in a fixed position; and
a kinetic interaction system (see Figures 13, 14a-14r, 17d, 18a-18j, 21, 21’, 22, 22n - Detail A, 23, and 25-28) which is provided on the supporting body such that the kinetic interaction system extends in an interior area of the channel when the supporting body is integrated in the fixed position,
wherein the kinetic interaction system includes either:
at least one pair of rotatory blades (see Figures 18a-18j), preferably at least two pairs of rotatory blades (see Figures 18a-18j), wherein each pair of rotatory blades is provided in such a way that:
each rotatory blade has a planar shape comprising two opposite, operational surfaces which are designed for kinetic interaction with a fluid flow;
each rotatory blade comprises a respective blade axis over which the rotatory blade is rotatable, and a respective blade gearing which is drivingly engaged to the blade axis;
the two rotatory blades are rotatably mounted by means of their respective blade axes onto one side of a common wheel and at a distance from each other, wherein the common wheel comprises a wheel axis over which the common wheel is rotatable, and wherein the two blade axes are mounted onto the common wheel at two respective positions which are both eccentric to the wheel axis,
the common wheel is rotatably connected to the supporting body by virtue of the wheel axis, and is drivingly connected to a wheel gearing;
the rotation of the common wheel drives the two blade gearings in order to rotate the two blade axes simultaneously;
the configuration of the kinetic interaction system is such that the two blade axes and the wheel axis have a similar, or parallel, direction to each other; and
during operation of the propellor system, the rotation of the common wheel in combination with the simultaneous rotation of each rotatory blade over its blade axis results in a combinatory rotation being performed by each rotatory blade, wherein each rotatory blade follows a cyclic trajectory per revolution of the common wheel, while the two rotatory blades do not contact with each other during their simultaneous rotations; or
a single rotatory blade (see Figures 14a-14r), which is provided in such a way that:
the rotatory blade has a planar shape comprising two opposite, operational surfaces which are designed for kinetic interaction with a fluid flow;
the rotatory blade comprises a respective blade axis over which the rotatory blade is rotatable, and a respective blade gearing which is drivingly engaged to the blade axis;
the rotatory blade is rotatably mounted by means of its blade axis onto one side of a common wheel, wherein the common wheel comprises a wheel axis over which the common wheel is rotatable, and wherein the blade axis is mounted onto the common wheel at a position which is eccentric to the wheel axis;
the common wheel is rotatably connected to the supporting body by virtue of the wheel axis, and is drivingly connected to a wheel gearing;
the rotation of the common wheel drives the blade gearing in order to rotate the blade axis;
the configuration of the kinetic interaction system is such that the blade axis and the wheel axis have a similar, or parallel, direction to each other; and
during operation of the propellor system, the rotation of the common wheel in combination with the simultaneous rotation of the rotatory blade over its blade axis results in a combinatory rotation being performed by the rotatory blade, wherein the rotatory blade follows a cyclic trajectory per revolution of the common wheel.
With regards to claim 2, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the cyclic trajectory that the rotatory blade follows is conform the shape of a cardioid curve (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j), in particular in view of the cyclic trajectory of a lateral end part of the rotatory blade.
With regards to claim 3, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the cyclic trajectory of the two rotatory blades within one pair is similar or identical (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j).
With regards to claim 4, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the blade gearing of each rotatory blade has a gearing ratio of 1/2, such that one revolution of the common wheel results in half a rotation of the rotatory blade over its blade axis.
With regards to claim 5, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the blade axes of two rotatory blades within each pair of rotatory blades are mounted onto the common wheel in opposed positions with respect to the wheel axis, preferably in diametrically opposed positions (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j).
With regards to claim 6, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
during operation of the propellor system, the two rotatory blades within one pair execute their respective combinatory rotations simultaneously and with a phase difference, preferably a phase difference between 160 and 200 degrees, most preferably 180 degrees.
With regards to claim 7, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
during one revolution of the common wheel, the rotatory blade assumes an idle orientation for minimum kinetic interaction during a first half of the revolution of the common wheel, and the rotatory blade assumes an active orientation for maximum kinetic interaction during a second half of the revolution of the common wheel (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j).
With regards to claim 8, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
during one complete revolution of the common wheel, the rotational speed of the rotatory blade gradually increases from a minimum rotational speed to a maximum rotational speed and subsequently gradually decreases from the maximum rotational speed to the minimum rotational speed (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j), wherein preferably the ratio of maximum rotational speed versus minimum rotational speed is about 2 : 1.
With regards to claim 9, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the maximum rotational speed is achieved during the first half of the complete revolution of the common wheel wherein the idle orientation of the rotatory blade is assumed, and the minimum rotational speed is achieved during the second half of the complete revolution of the common wheel wherein the active orientation of the rotatory blade is assumed.
With regards to claim 11, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the blade gearing for each rotatory blade being mounted on the respective common wheel (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j), wherein the blade gearing is positioned such that it includes one connecting gear that engages with a non-rotatory gear fixated onto the supporting body in a position concentric with the wheel axis.
With regards to claim 12, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
each rotatory blade has a height and a width (see Figures 11 and 17d), wherein the blade axis extends parallel to the height direction of the rotatory blade, and preferably the height of the rotatory blade is larger than the width of the rotatory blade.
With regards to claim 13, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the opposed operational surfaces of each rotatory blade are:
similar or identical (see Figures 13, 14a-14r, 17d, 18a-18j, 21, 21’, 22, 22n - Detail A, 23, and 25-28); and
substantially shaped as planar surfaces which are preferably provided with curved lateral end sections when viewed in cross-section perpendicular to the height direction of the rotatory blade (see Figures 13, 14a-14r, 17d, 18a-18j, 21, 21’, 22, 22n - Detail A, 23, and 25-28).
With regards to claim 14, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the kinetic interaction system comprises a first pair of rotatory blades and a second pair of rotatory blades (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j),
wherein:
the first pair of rotatory blades is rotatably connected to a first common wheel, and the second pair of rotatory blades is rotatably connected to a second common wheel;
the first common wheel and second common wheel are rotatably connected to the supporting body such that the first common wheel and second common wheel are arranged adjacent to each other in a coplanar configuration, and are drivingly connected to a respective first and second wheel gearing;
preferably the first common wheel and the second common wheel rotate in opposite directions to each other during operation.
With regards to claim 15, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the first pair of rotatory blades and the second pair of rotatory blades rotate in opposite directions and in mirror symmetry to each other (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j), and the rotational phase of the rotatory blades of the first common wheel and the rotational phase of the rotatory blades of the second common wheel are different from each other by a phase difference of 60 to 120 degrees, preferably 80 to 100 degrees, more preferably 90 degrees.
With regards to claim 16, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the cyclic trajectory of the rotatory blades of the first pair partially overlaps with the cyclic trajectory of the rotatory blades of the second pair (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j), in particular in view of the cyclic trajectory of the lateral end part of each rotatory blade.
With regards to claim 17, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
a first kinetic interaction system according to option (ii) ((see Figures 13, 14a-14r, 17d, 18a-18j, 21, 21’, 22, 22n - Detail A, 23, and 25-28)); and
a second kinetic interaction system according to option (ii) (see Figures 13, 14a-14r, 17d, 18a-18j, 21, 21’, 22, 22n - Detail A, 23, and 25-28),
wherein:
the first kinetic interaction system comprises a single rotatory blade that is rotatably connected to a first common wheel, and the second kinetic interaction system comprises a single rotatory blade that is rotatably connected to a second common wheel; and
the first common wheel and the second common wheel are rotatably connected to the supporting body such that the first common wheel and second common wheel are arranged adjacent to each other in a coplanar configuration, and are drivingly connected to a respective first and second wheel gearing, wherein preferably the first common wheel and the second common wheel rotate in opposite directions to each other during operation.
With regards to claim 18, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the single rotatory blade of the first kinetic interaction system and the single rotatory blade of the second kinetic interaction system rotate in opposite directions and in mirror symmetry to each other (see Figures 14a-14r or 18a-18j); and
the rotational phase of the first common wheel and the second common wheel are different from each other by a phase difference, preferably a phase difference between 160 and 200 degrees, most preferably 180 degrees.
With regards to claim 19, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the cyclic trajectory of the single rotatory blade of the first kinetic interaction system overlaps with the cyclic trajectory of the single rotatory blade of the second kinetic interaction system (see Figures 13, 14a-14r, 17d, 18a-18j, 21, 21’, 22, 22n - Detail A, 23, and 25-28), in particular in view of the cyclic trajectory of the lateral end part of each rotatory blade.
With regards to claim 20, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the supporting body of the propellor system is fixedly integrated within the channel (see Figures 25-28); and
the kinetic interaction system of the propellor system includes at least one common wheel (see Figures 14a-14r) which is provided in such a way that:
during a complete revolution of each common wheel, the rotatory blade assumes an idle (inactive or drag) orientation for minimum kinetic interaction during a first half of the complete revolution of the common wheel, and the rotatory blade assumes an active (thrust) orientation for maximum kinetic interaction during a second half of the revolution of the common wheel; and
each common wheel rotates against the unidirectional flow of fluid in the channel during the first half of the complete revolution, and the common wheel rotates with the unidirectional flow of fluid in the channel during the second half of the complete revolution,
wherein the first half of the revolution is performed at a small distance from the nearest side wall of the channel whereas the second half of the revolution is performed at a large distance from the nearest side wall of the channel.
With regards to claim 21, Grigorescu et al. discloses:
the propellor system being fixedly integrated in a longitudinal section of the channel through which the fluid flow is conducted (see Figures 25-28), which longitudinal section has a width between opposed side walls of the channel which width is not more than 20% larger, preferably not more than 10% larger, than the width necessary for allowing the rotatory blades to execute their respective cyclic trajectories during operation without contacting the opposed side walls.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,016,014 A to Grigorescu et al. in view of UK Patent Application GB 2 448 339 A to Janssen.
Grigorescu et al. clearly teaches a vertical axis wind energy conversion device having panels guided by cardioid rails as described in paragraph 4 above.
However, it fails to disclose the blade gearing for each rotatory blade includes an elliptic or oval gear co-operating with a circular gear, wherein preferably the circular gear is an eccentrically rotating, circular gear.
Janssen discloses turbine blade adjustment, comprising:
blade gearing for a rotatory blade that includes an elliptic or oval gear (see Figure 16) co-operating with a circular gear, wherein preferably the circular gear is an eccentrically rotating, circular gear.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the elliptic or oval gearing disclosed by Janssen on the vertical axis wind energy conversion device disclosed by Grigorescu et al., for the purpose of enabling “the following properties: i) constant distance between the centres of each disc; ii) non-constant peripheral velocity; iii) rods located at equivalent positions on the two outer elliptical discs maintain their separating distance.” (see page 24, lines 17-26).
Conclusion
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, Jessica Han can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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 January 22, 2026