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 § 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 1 – 10 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.
In claims 1, the statement “axially aligned with and internal to the turbine blades” is indefinite. It is not clear how the gearbox and generator would be “internal” with respect to the turbine blades or if the gearbox and generator are inside the turbine blades or if the gearbox and generator are smaller in axial size with respect to the turbine blades.
For Office Action purposes, it will be assumed that the gearbox and generator are smaller in size with respect to the blades and/or are located circumferentially inside the diameter of the blades axially/radially.
Claims 2 – 10 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 9, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 112324618) in view of Francis (US 4,424,452).
Liu discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, an electrical generation system for a vehicle (see abstract), comprising: a housing having a baffle assembly 4, 5 configured to selectively actuate so as to regulate the flow of air into the housing (see Fig. 1 and English machine translation); a turbine assembly downstream of the baffle assembly and configured to receive the flow of air in the housing (see Fig. 1), the turbine assembly having turbine blades 14 configured to generate electrical energy through rotation of the turbine blades as a result of the flow of air (see claim 1), the turbine blades rotating about a central shaft 19-1; a central gearbox 20 within the turbine assembly coupled about the central shaft (see Fig. 1); and an electrical generator 23 within the turbine assembly and coupled to the central shaft (via device 22) so as to selectively rotate and generate the electrical energy (see abstract and English machine translation pertaining to Fig. 1).
Francis is being cited for explicitly illustrating that it is common knowledge to have the central gearbox 36, 37 and electrical generator 33 are axially aligned with and internal to the turbine blades 22, such that the turbine blades, central gearbox, and electrical generator rotate about the central shaft (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Francis).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the central shaft is parallel to the flow of air in the housing (see Fig. 1).
Claim 4, the housing includes a screen 6 located upstream from the turbine assembly, the screen configured to filter out debris from entering the turbine assembly (see Fig. 1).
Claim 5, the baffle assembly actuates between an open and a closed orientation (see English machine translation pertaining to elements 4, 5).
Claim 6, a battery supply 27 configured to receive power from the electrical generator.
Claim 7, the battery supply is in electrical communication with the vehicle (see paragraph 1 of detail description in English machine translation).
Claim 8, the vehicle is configured to draw electrical power from the battery supply (see paragraphs 1, 2 of detail description in English machine translation).
Claim 9, the battery supply is used to accelerate the vehicle (since the battery is used for rotating the tire that drives the vehicle; see paragraphs 1, 2 of detail description in English machine translation).
Claim 11, A vehicle with an electrical generation system, comprising: a vehicle with a hood and a door (see Francis, Fig. 1; Liu, Background of invention mentions using the invention in an vehicle and automobile) ; a housing having a baffle assembly configured to selectively actuate so as to regulate the flow of air into the housing; a turbine assembly downstream of the baffle assembly and configured to receive the flow of air in the housing, the turbine assembly having turbine blades configured to generate electrical energy through rotation of the turbine blades as a result of the flow of air, the turbine blades rotating about a central shaft; a central gearbox within the turbine assembly coupled about the central shaft; and an electrical generator within the turbine assembly and coupled to the central shaft so as to selectively rotate and generate the electrical energy (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Francis further discloses, regarding,
Claim 14, the housing is located in a roof of the vehicle (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system as disclose by Liu and to show explicitly having a gearbox interacting with a turbine and a generator as shown by Francis for the purpose of providing a vehicle with a wind turbine that uses a high percentage of the power available at all times.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Francis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balakrishnan (US 2022/0355673).
The combined system discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined system does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Balakrishnan discloses, regarding,
Claim 3, the central shaft is perpendicular to the flow of air in the housing (see Figs. 1B, 2B). Moreover, a baffle assembly 122 is disclosed (see Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined system as disclose above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Balakrishnan for the purpose of increasing the vehicles’ operating range.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Francis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verbrugge et al (US 2010/0244445).
The combined system discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined system does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Verbrugge et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 10, the flow of air passes through the housing when the vehicle is stationary (see Figs. 1, 2; paragraphs 0033, 0034).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined system as disclose above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Verbrugge et al for the purpose of improving the fuel efficiency of a vehicle.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Francis as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wu (US 6,700,215).
The combined system/vehicle discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined system/vehicle does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Wu discloses, regarding,
Claim 12, housing is located at a front of the vehicle (see Figs. 1, 4).
Claim 13, the housing is located is a door of the vehicle (see Fig. 2, door area).
Claim 14, the housing is located in a roof of the vehicle (see Figs. 1, 4).
Claim 15, the flow of air across the vehicle is perpendicular to an axis of the turbine assembly (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined system as disclose above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Wu for the purpose of recharging a battery efficiently.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Francis as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pathak (WO 2021/048877).
The combined system/vehicle discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined system/vehicle does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Pathak discloses, regarding,
Claim 12, housing is located at a front of the vehicle (see Figs. 4, 6, 8, 14).
Claim 13, the housing is located is a door of the vehicle (see Fig. 4).
Claim 14, the housing is located in a roof of the vehicle (see Fig. 4).
Claim 15, the flow of air across the vehicle is perpendicular to an axis of the turbine assembly (see Figs. 4, 5, 6, 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined system as disclose above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Pathak for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of vehicles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks mentioned that the Prior Art allegedly does not disclose having turbine blades, a central gearbox, and a generator that all rotate about the same central shaft. Francis discloses that the gearbox, generator and blades rotate about the same central shaft (see annotated Fig. 3 of Francis above).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the blades, gearbox, generator rotating about the same central shaft; creating a nestled package that minimizes space requirement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Liu and Francis are both related to vehicles using wind turbines for harnessing electric energy. Both references are in the same field of endeavor. Anyone with ordinary skill in the art would have noticed easily the teachings that both prior arts provide.
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 Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached on 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
September 9, 2025